Chronologies and Calendars/Chapter 5

by James C. MacDonald

Chapter V.

Biblical Chronology.

THE pages of the Revised Bible^[1] show no dates, while many editions of the Authorised Version exhibit a chronological as well as a numerical pagination. In this we see one essential difference between the two versions. It is true that King James' version did not contain any system of yearly dates, but at the beginning of last century, B.C. and A.D. years were printed on the authority of Archbishop Usher's chronology. ^[2] Their minute precision cannot be regarded as a proof of accuracy; and at the present time the pretended years are not acknowledged, even by many divines. This is specially so regarding the B.C. dates, in which there is an ominous divergence between the figures derived from different textual sources. The Hebrew text reveals one, the Septuagent (or LXX.) another, and the Samartin Codex a third, and often vastly different period for a Scriptural event. Josephus fares no better at the hands of the critics,^[3] and the chronological statement of that author are now looked upon as being to a great extent worthless for the purposes of historic reference.

39. The very conservative Professor Sayce remarks that Assyrian inscriptions have shown that the chronology of the Book of Kings is hopelessly wrong.^[4] Writing in 1893, Canon Driver says: "The Biblical chronology of the Kings of Judah and Israel is in perplexing disagreement with that fixed by the contemporary Assyrian inscriptions. It is allowed by modern commentators and historians that in cases of divergence, the latter is to be preferred.'^[5] That the Usher system of dates should not be 'regarded as more than the sequence of the events' is therefore now a very general request by Biblical scholars.

38. This attitude toward the chronology of the Hebrews is quite logical when facts come to be faced, for (1) the copious citations of genealogies prove that the rough and unreliable mode of reckoning by generations—the word itself is Biblically very common—was too often the chronological basis; (2) the regnal years were counted by tens of years; but (3) otherwise septennates or weeks of years (being periods of seven years each) were also in use. In some centuries the Jordon acted as a chronological divider in the kingdoms, separate systems being used.

39. Though the sacred years of the Hebrews were held to begin with the new moon in the month Nisan, yet Cruden conjectures^[6] that in remote times(?) they reckoned their months by the sun, and then thirty days equalled a month; and this he holds to be proved by the tradition that the Flood lasted 150 days, or five months. It is thought that their lunar basis was adopted from Egypt. In any event, the conjecture by Cruden has not been generally accredited.

40. Writing upon the minor prophets, Farrar says 'the Bible would be far better understood in its historical aspect if it were arranged with greater reference to chronology. As it is, the Books of the Prophets, like the epistles of the New Testament, are heterogeneously flung together with reference only to their length and size. This is, of course, a purely accidental principle of arrangement.'^[7] And in another place the same authority calls 'attention to the certainty that the Biblical chronology of the Kings is merely given in round numbers. It consists mainly of multiples of twenty.' This opinion is homologated in the very recent volume by Henry Hill on the 'Kings of Israel and Judah,' when he says 'the difficulties under the head of chronology seemed almost insuperable.'

41. For the purposes of cross-references between the old Hebrew Calendar and the Greek and the Roman reckonings, I append^[8] a table showing the months which corresponded in each style. The first column or Hebrew is in the order of the ancient sacred year, and the Roman names are in the progression usual prior to the Julian correction of 45 B.C., that is the year's commencement being in March-April.

Hebrew.	Syro-Macedonian.			Roman.
Nisan	i.e.	Xanthicus	i.e.	Mar. and April.
Jyar	i.e.„	Artemisius	i.e.„	April and May.
Sivan	i.e.„	Daesius	i.e.„	May and June.
Tamuz	i.e.„	Panemus	i.e.„	June and July.
Ab	i.e.	Loüs	i.e.	July and Aug.
Elul	i.e.„	Gorpiaeus	i.e.„	Aug. and Sept.
Tisri	i.e.„	Hyberberetaeus	i.e.„	Sept. and Oct.
Marchesvan	i.e.„	Dius	i.e.„	Oct. and Nov.
Casleu	i.e.„	Apellaeus	i.e.„	Nov. and Dec.
Tebeth	i.e.„	Audynaeus	i.e.„	Dec. and Jan.
Shebat	i.e.„	Peritius	i.e.„	Jan. and Feb.
Adar	i.e.„	Dystrus	i.e.„	Feb. and Mar.

In a subsequent section, special notice will be taken of the method of intercalculating the second Adar^[9] or be-Adar.

42. There are several evidences that after B.C. 306, the era of Seleucides became current for purposes other than the religous calendar. That era counts from the first year of the dynasty of Seleucus, or B.C. 312. In less than two centuries its influence expired in Palestine, the Jews continuing the Jubilee year. i.e., the fiftieth year.

43. The Hebrew day was reckoned from sundown to sundown, but of the seven days in a week, only the Sabbath had a special name, the others being merely the first day, the second, and so on, of a week. Until the Romans came, the Jewish night had three watches—ten and two o'clock being the division points. Thereafter the

2nd1st watch was from dark to 9	(no twilight in Palastine).
2nd watch wa„s from„ 9 to midnight	(middle watch).
2nd3rd watch wa„s from„ midnight to 3	(cock crow)
2nd4th watch wa„s from„ 3 to morning	(morning watch)

44. Coming now to the chronology specially connected with the events mentioned in the New Testament, it is surprising to find that twenty years ago Dr. Conder^[10] said, 'with regard to the chronology of the New Testament, the only part which, notwithstanding long discussion, can as yet be said to have been brought within the province of reasonable certitude, is the narrative of the Acts of the Apostles, together with the dates of such epistle as may be referred to in the history therein contained. The pious student will fondly seek to attach a distinct date to each of the events recorded in the Gospels, but it is not a help but a hindrance to intelligent study to hold out the idea that this has yet been done.'

45. But coming down to the most recent trend of chronological and theological opinion, there is one point which should be mentioned. It is the date of the Quirinus Taxation. Wycliffe^[11] reads thus: 'And it was don in the daies a maundement went out fro the Emperor August that al the world schulde be discryued. This firste discryuing was maad of Cyryn, iustice of Sirie.'^[12]

46. This statement, which is perplexing (seeing Cyrenius or Quirinus was not appointed 'Justice' or Governor of Syria till a decade after the Advent), has been made even more perplexing by the wording of the R.T., which is, 'This was the first enrolment made when Quirinus was Governor of Syria.' Now, it only remains to note that this sentence leaves the date in question still beclouded. But it can hardly be a matter for wonder to find the revisers fighting shy of a praetorian dictum when one of the deepest thinkers upon Biblical enquiries has affixed to the verses the opinion that they revealed only 'chronological incongruities.'^[13] And incongruities they remain on the eve of the twentieth century of the era which they were intended to herald. If the theologians, pictured by Hugh Miller and the 'pious student' of Conder, are disconcerted to find that Biblical Chronology is an unsubstantial fabric, it is well, as Dr. Marcus Dods said, in another connection, that they 'should be disconcerted.'

1. The recent publication of a Revised Apocrypha has re-awakened interest in the revisers' works.
2. In his Annales Testamenti.
3. His 'Antiquities' were published by him in the 13th year of the Emperor Domitian, i.e. 93 A.D.
4. Quoted in Gain or Loss, p. 118.
5. Driver, p. 13.
6. Concordance, vide month.
7. Farrar, p. 23.
8. From Whiston, p. 856.
9. See section 58 infra.
10. Bible Educator, vol. iv., p. 27.
11. 1388 A.D., Wycliffe and Purvey, p. 144.
12. Modernised thus: 'And it was done in those days, a command went out from the Emperor Augustus that all the world. should be described. This first describing was made by Quirinus, Justice of Syria.' A census was the practical outcome.
13. Strauss (sec. 32).