1. CHRONOLOGICAL TREATISE AND TABLES

2. MISCELLANEOUS: WHO AND WHEN

A. ARTAXERXES LONGIMANUS & THE CHRONOLOGY OF HIS REIGN

B. DATE OF THE NATIVITY

C. CONTINUOUS HISTORICAL SYSTEM OF PROPHETIC INTERPRETATION

D. THE TEN KINGDOMS

E. CHRONOLOGICAL DIAGRAM OF THE HISTORY OF JUDAH

3. A RETROSPECT AND A REPLY

.
.

APPENDIX 1.

CHRONOLOGICAL TREATISE AND TABLES

THE point of contact between sacred and profane chronology, and therefore the first certain date, in biblical history, is the accession of Nebuchadnezzar to the throne of Babylon (cf. Daniel 1:1 and Jeremiah 25:1). From this date we reckon on to Christ and back to Adam. The agreement of leading chronologers is a sufficient guarantee that David began to reign in B.C. l056-5, and therefore that all dates subsequent to that event can be definitely fixed. But beyond this epoch, certainty vanishes.. The marginal dates of our English Bible represent: in the main Archbishop Ussher's chronology, [*] and notwithstanding his eminence as a chronologer some of these dates are doubtful, and others entirely wrong.

Of the doubtful dates in Ussher's scheme the reigns of Belshazzar and "Ahasuerus" may serve as examples. Belshazzar's case is specially interesting. Scripture plainly states that he was King of Babylon at its conquest by the Medo-Persians, and that he was slain the night Darius entered the city. On the other hand, not only does no ancient historian mention Belshazzar, but all agree that the last king of Babylon was Nabonidus, who was absent from the city when the Persians captured it, and who afterwards submitted to the conquerors at Borsippa. Thus the contradiction between history and Scripture appeared to be absolute. Skeptics appealed to history to discredit the book of Daniel; and commentators solved or shirked the difficulty by rejecting history. The cuneiform inscriptions, however, have now settled the controversy in a manner as satisfactory as it was unexpected. On clay cylinders discovered by Sir H. Rawlinson at Mughier and other Chaldean sites, Belshazzar (Belsaruzur) is named by Nabonidus as his eldest son. The inference is obvious, that during the latter years of his father's reign, Belshazzar was King-Regent in Babylon. According to Ptolemy's canon Nabonidus reigned seventeen years (from s. c. 555 to B.C. 538), and Ussher gives these years to Belshazzar.

In common with many other writers, Ussher has assumed that the King of the book of Esther was Darius Hystaspes, but it is now generally agreed that it is the son and successor of Darius who is there mentioned as Ahasuerus — "a name which orthographically corresponds with the Greek Xerxes." [1]

The great durbar of the first chapter of Esther, held in his third year (ver. 3), was presumably with a view to his expedition against Greece (B.C. 483); and the marriage of Esther was in his seventh year (2:16), having been delayed till then on account of his absence during the campaign. The marginal dates of the book of Esther should therefore begin with B.C. 486, instead of B.C. 521, as given in our English Bibles.

But these are comparatively trivial points, whereas the principal error of Ussher's chronology is of real importance. According to 1 Kings 6:1, Solomon began to build the Temple "in the 480th year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt." The mystic character of this era of 480 years has been noticed in an earlier chapter. Ussher assumed that it represented a strictly chronological period, and reckoning back from the third year of Solomon, he fixed the date of the Exodus as B.C. 1491, — an error which vitiates his entire system.

Acts 13:18-21, St. Paul, in treating of the interval between the Exodus and the end of Saul's reign, specifies three several periods; viz., 40 years, about 450 years, and 40 years = 530 years. From the accession of David to the third year of Solomon, when the temple was founded, was forty-three years. According to this enumeration therefore, the period between the Exodus and the temple was 530 + 43 years = 573 years. Clinton, however, whose chronology has been very generally adopted, conjectures that there was an interval of twenty-seven years between the death of Moses and the first servitude, and an interval of twelve years between "Samuel the prophet" (1 Samuel 7) and the election of Saul. Accordingly he estimates the period between the Exodus and the temple as 573 + 27 + 12 years = 612 years. [2]

Clinton's leading dates, therefore, are as follows:--

B.C. 4138. — Adam.
B.C. 2482. — The Deluge.
B.C. 2055. — The Call of Abraham.
B.C. 1625. — The Exodus.
B.C. 1096. — The Election of Saul.
B.C. 1056. — David.
B.C. 1016. — Solomon.
B.C.. 976. — Rehoboam.
B.C. 606. — The Captivity (i.e., the Servitude to Babylon).

In this chronology Browne proposes three corrections (Ordo Sec., Ch. 10, 13); viz., he rejects the two conjectural terms of twenty-seven years and twelve years above noticed; and he adds two years to the period between the Deluge and the Exodus. If this last correction be adopted (and it is perfectly legitimate, considering that approximate accuracy is all that the ablest chronologer can claim to have attained for this era), let three years be added to the period between the Deluge and the Covenant with Abraham, and the latter event becomes exactly, as it is in any case approximately, the central epoch between the Creation and the Crucifixion. The date of the Deluge will thus be put back to B.C. 2485, and therefore the Creation will be B.C. 4141.

The following most striking features appear in the chronology as thus settled:--

From Adam to the Covenant with Abraham (B.C. 4141 to B.C. 2055) is 2086 years.

From Abraham to the Crucifixion of Christ (B.C. 2055 to A.D. 32) is 2086 years.

From Adam to the Deluge (B.C. 4141 to B.C. 2485) is 1656 years.

From the Deluge to the Covenant (B.C. 2485 to B.C. 2055) is 430 years.

From the Covenant to the Exodus (B.C. 2055 to B.C. 1625) is 430 years.

From the Exodus to the Crucifixion (B.C. 1625 to A.D. 32) is 1656 years. [3]

The Covenant here mentioned is that recorded in Genesis 12 in connection with the call of Abraham. The statements of Scripture relating to this part of the chronology may seem to need explanation in two respects.

Stephen declares in Acts 7:4 that Abraham's removal from Haran (or Charran) took place after the death of his father. But Abraham was only seventy-five years of age when he entered Canaan; whereas if we assume from Genesis 11:26 that Abraham was born when Terah was but seventy, he must have been one hundred and thirty at the call, for Terah died at two hundred and five. (Compare Genesis 11:26, 31, 32; 12:4.) The fact however is obvious from these statement that though named first among the sons of Terah, Abraham was not the firstborn, but the youngest: Terah was seventy when his eldest son was born, and he had three sons, Haran, Nahor, and Abraham. To ascertain his age at Abraham's birth we must needs turn to the history, and there we learn it was one hundred and thirty years. [4] And this will account for the deference Abraham paid to Lot, who, though his nephew, was nevertheless his equal in years, possibly his senior; and moreover, as the son of Abraham's eldest brother, the nominal head of the family. (Genesis 13:8, 9.)

Again. According to Exodus 12:40 "the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was 430 years." If this be taken to mean (as the statement in Genesis 15:13, quoted by Stephen in Acts 7:6, might also seem to imply) that the Israelites were four centuries in Egypt, the entire chronology must be changed. But, as St. Paul explains in Galatians 3:17, these 430 years are to be computed from the call of Abraham, and not from the going down of Israel into Egypt. The statement in Genesis 15:13 is explained and qualified by the words which follow in ver. 16. The entire period of Israel's wanderings was to be four centuries, but when the passage speaks definitely of their sojourn in Egypt it says' "In the fourth generation they shall come hither again" — a word which was accurately fulfilled, for Moses was the fourth in descent from Jacob. [5]

It was not till 470 years after the covenant with Abraham that his descendants took their place as one of the nations of the earth. They were slaves in Egypt, and in the wilderness they were wanderers; but under Joshua they entered the land of promise and became a nation. And with this last event begins a series of cycles of "seventy weeks" of years.

From the entrance into Canaan (B.C. 1586-5) to the establishment of the kingdom under Saul (B.C. 1096) was 490 years.

From the kingdom (B.C. 1096) to the servitude to Babylon (B.C. 606) was 490 years.

From the epoch of the servitude (B.C. 606) until the royal edict of the twentieth year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, the national independence of Judah was in abeyance, and with that date began the mystic era of 490 years, which form the "seventy weeks" of the prophecy of Daniel.

Again the period Between the dedication of the first temple in the eleventh year of Solomon (B.C. 1066-5) and the dedication of the second temple in the sixth year of Darius Hystaspes of Persia (B.C. 515), was 490 years. [6]

Are we to conclude that these results are purely accidental? No thoughtful person will hesitate to accept the more reasonable alternative that the chronology of the world is part of a Divine plan or "economy of times and seasons."

The chronological inquiry suggested by the data afforded by the books of 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, is of principal importance, not only as establishing the absolute accuracy of Scripture, but also because it throws light upon the main question of the several eras of the captivity, which again are closely allied with the era of the seventy weeks.

The student of the book of Daniel finds every step beset with difficulties, raised either by avowed enemies, or quasi expositors of Holy Writ. Even the opening statement of the book has been assailed on all sides. That Daniel was made captive in the third year of Jehoiakim "is simply an invention of late Christian days," declares the author of Messiah the Prince (p. 42), in keeping with the style in which this writer disposes of history sacred and profane, in order to support his own theories.

In Dean Milman's History of the Jews, the page which treats of this epoch is full of inaccuracies. First he confounds the seventy years of the desolations, predicted in Jeremiah 25., with the seventy years of the servitude, which had already begun. Then as the prophecy of Jeremiah 25: was given in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, he fixes the first capture of Jerusalem in that year, whereas Scripture expressly states it took place in Jehoiakim's third year (Daniel 1:1). He proceeds to specify B.C. 601 as the year of Nebuchadnezzar's invasion; and here the confusion is hopeless, as he mentions two periods of three years each between that date and the king's death, which nevertheless he rightly assigns to the year B.C. 598.

Again, Dr. F. W. Newman's article on the Captivities, in Kitto's Cyclopaedia, well deserves notice as a specimen of the kind of criticism to be found in standard books ostensibly designed to aid the study of Scripture.

"The statement with which the book of Daniel opens is" (he maintains) "in direct collision with the books of Kings and Chronicles, which assign to Jehoiakim an eleven years' reign, as also with Jeremiah 25:1. It partially rests on 2 Chronicles 36:6, which is itself not in perfect accordance with 2 Kings 24. In the earlier history the war broke out during the reign of Jehoiakim, who died before its close; and when his son and successor Jehoiachin had reigned three months, the city and its king were captured. But in the Chronicles the same event is made to happen twice over at an interval of three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:6 and 9); and even so we do not obtain accordance with the received interpretation of Daniel 1:1-3."

This writer's conclusions are adopted by Dean Stanley in his Jewish Church (vol. 2., p. 459), wherein he enumerates among the captives taken with Jehoiachin in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar, the prophet Daniel, who had gained a position at the court of Babylon six years before Jehoiachin came to the throne! (Compare 2 Kings 24:12 with Daniel 2:1.)

A reference to the Five Great Monarchies (vol. 3., pp. 488-494), and the Fasti Hellenici, will show how thoroughly consistent the sacred history of this period appears to the mind of a historian or a chronologer; and moreover how completely it harmonizes with the extant fragments of the history of Berosus.

Jehoiakim did in fact reign eleven years. In his third year he became the vassal of the King of Babylon. For three years he paid tribute, and in his sixth year he revolted. There is not a shadow of reason for believing that the first verse of Daniel is spurious; and apart from all claim to Divine sanction for the book, the idea that such a writer — a man of princely rank and of the highest culture, (Daniel 1:3, 4.) and raised to the foremost place among the wise and noble of Babylonia — was ignorant of the date and circumstances of his own exile, is simply preposterous. But according to Dr. Newman, he needed to refer to the book of Chronicles for the information, and was deceived thereby! A comparison of the statements in Kings, Chronicles, and Daniel clearly establishes that the narratives are independent, each giving details omitted in the other books. The second verse of Daniel appears inconsistent with the rest only to a mind capable of supposing that the living king of Judah was placed as an ornament in the temple of Belus along with the holy vessels; for so Dr. Newman has read it. And the apparent inconsistency in 2 Chronicles 36:6 disappears when read with the context, for the eighth verse shows the writer's knowledge that Jehoiakim completed his reign in Jerusalem. Moreover the correctness of the entire history is signally established by fixing the chronology of the events, a crucial test of accuracy.

Jerusalem was first taken by the Chaldeans in the third year of Jehoiakim (Daniel 1:1). His fourth year was current with the first of Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 25:1). This accords with the deft, the statement of Berosus that Nebuchadnezzar's first expedition took place before his actual accession (Jos., Apion, 1. 19). According to the canon of Ptolemy, the accuracy of which has been fully established, the reign of Nebuchadnezzar dates from B.C. 604, i.e., his accession was in the year beginning the first Thoth (which fell in January) B.C. 604, and the history leaves no doubt it was early in that year. But the captivity, according to the era of Ezekiel, began in Nebuchadnezzar's eighth year (comp. Ezekiel 1:2 and 2 Kings 24:12); and in the thirty-seventh year of the captivity, Nebuchadnezzar's successor was on the throne (2 Kings 25:27). This would give Nebuchadnezzar a reign of at least: forty-four years, whereas according to the Canon (and Berosus confirms it) he reigned only forty-three years, and was succeeded by Evil-Merodach (the Iluoradam of the Canon), in B.C. 561.

It follows therefore that Scripture antedates the years of Nebuchadnezzar, computing his reign from B.C. 605. [7] This would be sufficiently accounted for by the fact that, from the conquest of Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim, the Jews acknowledged Nebuchadnezzar as their suzerain. It has been overlooked, however, that it is in accordance with the ordinary principle on which they reckoned regnal years, computing them from Nisan to Nisan. In B.C. 604 the 1st Nisan fell on or about the 1st April, [8] and according to Jewish reckoning, the King's second year would begin on that day, no matter how recently he had ascended the throne. Therefore "the fourth year of Jehoiakim that was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar" (Jeremiah 25:1), was the year beginning Nisan B.C. 605; and the third of Jehoiakim, in which Jerusalem was taken and the servitude began, was the year beginning Nisan B.C. 606.

This result is most remarkably confirmed by Clinton, who fixes the summer of B.C. 606 as the date of Nebuchadnezzar's first expedition. [9]

It is further confirmed by, and affords the explanation of a statement of Daniel, which has been triumphantly appealed to in depreciation of the value of his book. If, it is urged, the King of Babylon kept Daniel three years in training before admitting him to his presence, how could the prophet have interpreted the King's dream in his second year? (Daniel 1:5, 18; 2:1). Daniel, a citizen of Babylon, and a courtier withal, naturally and of course computed his sovereign's reign according to the common era in use around him (as Nehemiah afterwards did in like circumstances.) But as the prophet was exiled in B.C. 606, his three years' probation terminated at the close of B.C. 603, whereas the second year of Nebuchadnezzar, computed from his actual accession, extended to some date in the early months of B.C. 602.

Again. The epoch of Jehoiachin's captivity was in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 24:12), i.e., his eighth year as reckoned from Nisan.

But the ninth year of the captivity was still current on the tenth Tebeth in the ninth year of Zedekiah and seventeenth of Nebuchadnezzar (comp. Ezekiel 24:1, 2, with 2 Kings 25:1-8).

And the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar and eleventh of Zedekiah, in which Jerusalem was destroyed, was in part concurrent with the twelfth year of the captivity (comp. 2 Kings 25:2-8 with Ezekiel 33:21).

It follows therefore that Jehoiachin (Jeconiah) must have been taken at the close of the Jewish year ("when the year was expired," 2 Chronicles 36:10), that is the year preceding 1st Nisan, B.C. 597; and Zedekiah was made king (after a brief interregnum) early in the year beginning on that day. [10] And it also follows that whether computed according to the era of Nebuchadnezzar, of Zedekiah, or of the captivity, B.C. 587 was the year in which "the city was smitten." [11]

The first link in this chain of dates is the third year of Jehoiakim, and every new link confirms the proof of the correctness and importance of that date. It has been justly termed the point of contact between sacred and profane history; and its importance in the sacred chronology is immense on account of its being the epoch of the servitude of Judah to the King of Babylon.

The servitude must not be confounded with the captivity, as it generally is. It was rebellion against the Divine decree which entrusted the imperial scepter to Nebuchadnezzar, that brought on the Jews the further judgment of a national deportation, and the still more terrible chastisement of the "desolations." The language of Jeremiah is most definite in this respect. "I have given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, my servant." "The nation which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, that nation will I punish, saith the Lord, with the sword, and with the famine, and with the pestilence, until I have consumed them by his hand." But the nations that bring their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, and serve him, those will I let remain still in their own land, saith the Lord, and they shall till it and dwell therein" (Jeremiah 27:6, 8 11; and comp. chap.38:17-21).

The appointed era of this servitude was seventy years, and the twenty-ninth chapter of Jeremiah was a message of hope to the captivity, that at the expiration of that period they should return to Jerusalem (ver. 10). The twenty-fifth chapter, oil the oilier hand, was a prediction for the rebellious Jews who remained in Jerusalem after the servitude had commenced, warning them that their stubborn disobedience would bring on them utter destruction, and that for seventy years the whole land should be "a desolation."

To recapitulate. The thirty-seventh year of the captivity was current on the accession of Evil-Merodach (2 Kings 25:27), and the epoch of that king's reign was B.C. 561. Therefore the captivity dated from the year beginning Nisan 598 and ending Adar 597. But this was the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar according to Scripture reckoning. Therefore his first year was Nisan 605 to Nisan 604. The first capture of Jerusalem and the beginning of the servitude was during the preceding year, 606-605. The final destruction of the city was in Nebuchadnezzar's nineteenth year, i.e., 587, and the siege began 10th Tebeth (or about 25th December), 589, which was the epoch of the desolations. The burning of Jerusalem cannot have been B.C. 588, as given by Ussher, Prideaux, etc., for in that case [12] the captivity would have begun B.C. 599, and the thirty-seventh year would have ended before the accession of Evil-Merodach. Nor can it have been B.C. 586, as given by Jackson, Hales, etc., for then the thirty-seventh year would not have begun during Evil-Merodach's first year. [13]

This scheme is practically the same as Clinton's, [14] and the sanction of his name may be claimed for it, for it differs from his only in that he dates Jehoiakim's reign from August B.C. 609, and Zedekiah's from June B.C. 598, his attention not having been called to the Jewish practice of computing reigns from Nisan; whereas I have fixed Nisan B.C. 608 as the epoch of Jehoiakim's reign, and Nisan B.C. 597 for Zedekiah's. Not of course that Nisan was in fact the month-date of the accession, but that, according to the rule of the Mishna and the practice of the nation, the reign was so reckoned. Jehoiakim's date could not be Nisan B.C. 609, because his fourth year was also the first of Nebuchadnezzar, and the thirty-seventh year, reckoned from the eighth of Nebuchadnezzar, was the first of Evil-Merodach, i.e., B.C. 561, which date fixes the whole chronology as Clinton himself conclusively argues. [15] It follows from this also that: Zedekiah's date must be B.C. 597, and not 598.

The chronology adopted by Dr. Pusey [16] is essentially the same as Clinton's. The scheme here proposed differs from it only to the extent and on the grounds above indicated. His suggestion: that the fast proclaimed in the fifth year of Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 36:9.) referred to the capture of Jerusalem in his third year, is not improbable, and points to Chisleu (Nov.) B.C. 606 as the date of that event. For the reasons above stated, it could not have been B.C. 607, as Dr. Pusey supposes, and the same argument proves that Canon Rawlinson's date for Nebuchadnezzar's expedition (B.C. 605) is a year too late. [17]

The correctness of this scheme will, I presume, be admitted, as regards the cardinal point of difference between it and Clinton's chronology, namely, that the reigns of the Jewish kings are reckoned from Nisan. It remains to notice the points of difference between the results here offered and Browne's hypotheses (Orda Saec., Ch. 162-169). He arbitrarily assumes that Jehoiachin's captivity and Zedekiah's reign began on the same day. This leads him to assume further (1) that they were reckoned from the same day, viz., the 1st Nisan, and (2) that Nebuchadnezzar's royal years dated from some date between 1st Nisan and 10 Ab 606 (Ch. 166). Both these positions are untenable. (1) The Jews certainly reckoned the reigns of their kings from 1st Nisan, but there is no proof that they so reckoned the years of ordinary periods or eras such as the captivity. (2) The presumption is strong, confirmed by all the synchronisms of the chronology, that they computed Nebuchadnezzar's royal era either according to the Chaldean reckoning, as in Daniel, or according to their own system, as in the other books.

TABLE #1-- CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE

The following table will show at a glance the several eras of the servitude to Babylon, king Jehoiachin's captivity, and the desolations of Jerusalem.

In using the table it is essential to bear in mind two points already stated.

1. The year given in the first column is the Jewish year beginning the 1st Nisan (March — April). For example, B.C. 604 is the year beginning the 1st April, 604; and B.C. 589 is the year beginning the 15th March, 589 According to the Mishna, [18] "On the 1st of Nisan is a new year for the computation of the reign of kings, and for festivals." To which the editors of the English translation add this note:" The reign of Jewish kings, whatever the period of accession might be, was always reckoned from the preceding Nisan; so that if, for instance, a Jewish king began to reign in Adar, the following month (Nisan) would be considered as the commencement of the second year of his reign. This rule was observed in all legal contracts, in which the reign of kings was always mentioned."

2. The years of the different eras are only in part concurrent. For example the first year of the desolations dates from the tenth day of Tebeth (25th December), B.C. 589, and the tenth year of the captivity begins even later, while the ninth year of Zedekiah and seventeenth of Nebuchadnezzar dates from the 1St Nisan (15th March) B.C. 589.

If these points be kept in view the chronology of the table will be found to harmonize every chronological statement relating to the period embraced in it, contained in the Books of Kings, Chronicles, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel.

 

TABLE #2-- TABLE OF CHRONOLOGICAL PARALLELISMS
SHOWING THAT THE CALL OF ABRAHAM WAS THE CENTRAL POINT BETWEEN THE CREATION AND THE CRUCIFIXION

the key--

* These dates differ from Clinton's chronology by three years. See p. 223, ante.

** Galatians 3:17 "And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect."

*** See pp. 97 and 122, ante.

TABLE #3-- CERTAIN LEADING DATES IN HISTORY, SACRED AND PROFANE [19]

BC

• 2055. The Covenant with Abraham.
  
   
• 1625. The Exodus. The giving of the Law.
  
   
• 1585. The entrance into Canaan under Joshua.
  
   
• 1096. Saul. The kingdom established.
  
   
• 1056. David.
  
   
• 1016. Solomon
  
   
• 1014. The Temple founded.
  
   
• 1006. The Temple dedicated.
  
   
• 976. Rehoboam. Israel revolts from Judah, and becomes a separate kingdom under Jeroboam.
  
   
• 776. Era of the Olympiads begins.
  
   
• 753. Era of Rome (A.U.C.) begins.
  
   
• 747. Era of Nabonassar begins.
  
   
• 726. Hezekiah king of Judah (reigned 29 years).
  
   
• 721. Israel (the ten tribes) carried captive to Assyria.
  
   
• 697. Manasseh (55 years).
  
   
• 642. Amon (2 years).
  
   
• 640. Josiah (31 years).
  
   
• 627. Jeremiah began to prophesy.
  
   
• 608. Jehoiakim (11 years).
  
   
• 606. Babylon.-- Jerusalem taken by Nebuchadnezzar. Servitude began.
  
   
• 598. Jerusalem taken the second time by the Babylonians. King Jehoiachin's captivity.
  
   
• 589. Jerusalem besieged the third time by the Babylonians. The Desolations.
  
   
• 587. Jerusalem taken and destroyed.
  
   
• 561. Death of Nebuchadnezzar and accession of Evil-Merodach.
  
   
• 559. Cyrus begins to reign in Persia.
  
   
• 538. Persia. — Babylon taken by the Medes and Persians.
  
   
• 536. Cyrus succeeds Darius in the empire. Decree to build the temple.
  
   
• 521. Darius Hystaspes of Persia.
  
   
• 520. Foundation of the 2nd Temple. Haggai and Zechariah prophesied.
  
   
• 515. Dedication of the second temple.
  
   
• 490. Battle of Marathon.
  
   
• 485. Xerxes succeeds Darius; the Ahasuerus of the book of Esther.
  
   
• 484. Herodotus the historian born.
  
   
• 480. Battles of Thermopylae and Salamis.
  
   
• 471. Themistocles banished by ostracism. Thucydides (historian) born.
  
   
• 468. Socrates born (died 399).
  
   
• 466. Flight of Themistocles to Persia.
  
   
• 465. Artaxerxes Longimanus of Persia.
  
   
• 458. Decree of Artaxerxes to beautify the temple (Ezra 7.)
  
   
• 449. Persians defeated by the Athenians at Salamis in Cyprus.
  
   
• 445. Era of the 70 weeks begins. Twentieth year of Artaxerxes: Jerusalem restored. Herodotus, aet. 39, engaged on his history.
  
   
• 429. Plato born (died 347).
  
   
• 424. Darius Nothus of Persia (Nehemiah 12:22).
  
   
• 405. Artaxerxes Mnemon of Persia.
  
   
• 397. Malachi. The dispensation of "the Prophets" closes. End of the first week of Daniel's 70 weeks.
  
   
• 359. Ochus of Persia.
  
   
• 336. Darius Codomanus of Persia.
  
   
• 333. Greece. — Battle of Issus. (Battle of Granicus, 334; & of Arbela, 331)
  
   
• 323. Death of Alexander the Great.
  
   
• 312. Era of the Seleucidae begins.
  
   
• 301. Battle of Ipsus.
  
   
• 170. Jerusalem taken by Antiochus Epiphanes.
  
   
• 168. The temple defiled by Antiochus.
  
   
• 165. Jerusalem retaken by Judas Maccabeus. The temple cleansed, and the Feast of the Dedication appointed. (1 Maccabees. 4:52-59; John 10:22).
  
   
• 63. Rome.. — Pompey takes Jerusalem.
  
   
• 40. Herod the Great appointed king of Judea by the Romans.
  
   
• 37. Herod takes Jerusalem, and is acknowledged as king by the Jews.
  
   
• 31. Battle of Actium.
  
   
• 12. Augustus Emperor of Rome.
  
   
• 4. The Nativity.
  
   
• 3. Death of Herod. Archelaus made Ethnarch of Judea, and Herod Antipas set over Galilee.
  
   

A.D.

• 14. Tiberius Emperor of Rome (from 19th August).
  
   
• 28. 15th year of Tiberius, from 19th Aug. A.D. 28, to 19th Aug. 29. The Lord's ministry began in this year, Luke 3.
  
   
• 32. The crucifixion (at the fourth Passover of the Lord's ministry).

.
.
TABLE #4-- THE JEWISH MONTHS

Nisan, or Abib ... March — April.

Zif, or Iyar ... April — May.

Sivan ... May — June.

Tammuz ... June — July.

Ab ... July — August.

Elul ... August — September.

Tisri, or Ethanim ... September — October.

Bul, or Marchesvan ... October — November.

Chisleu ... November — December

Tebeth ... December — January

Sebat ... January — February

Adar ... February — March

Ve-Adar (the intercalary month).

Full information on the subject of the present "Hebrew Calendar" will be found in an article so entitled in Encyc. Brit. (9th ed.), and also in Lindo's Jewish Calendar, a Jewish work. The Mishna is the earliest work relating to it.

APPENDIX 1. FOOTNOTES

[*] Bishop Lloyd, to whom was entrusted the task of editing the A. V., in this respect made a few alterations, as ex. gr., in the book of Nehemiah he rejected Ussher's chronology, and inserted the true historical date of the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus.

[1] Rawlinson's Herodotus, 4., p. 212. Xerxes (old Persian Khshayarsha) is derived by Sir H. Rawlinson from Khshaya, 'a King'" (Ibid. 3., 446, App. Book 6. note A).

[2] Josephus appears to confirm this in Ant. 20:10 Ch. 1, where he specifies 612 years between the Exodus and the temple, but in Ant. 8:3 Ch. 1, he fixes the same period at 592 years. It is supposed that in the longer era he included the twenty years during which both the temple and the palace were building.

[3] Cf. Browne Ordo Saec. Ch. 13. His system, however, compels him to specify the destruction of Jerusalem (A. D. 70) as the close of the Mosaic economy, which is certainly wrong. The crucifixion was the great crisis in the history of Judah and of the world.

[4] Clinton, F. H., vol. 1., p. 299. Alford's supercilious comments on this (Gr. Test., Acts 7:4) could be easily disposed of were the occasion opportune for the discussion this would involve. Indeed a passing reference to Genesis 25:1, 2, would have modified his statements.

[5] His mother was a daughter of Levi (Exodus 2:1).

[6] It is a remarkable coincidence that the era of the second temple was so nearly this same period of 490 years, B. C. 515 to about B. C. 18 when Herod rebuilt it.

[7] Clinton, F. H., vol. 1., p. 367.

[8] The Paschal new moon, in B. C. 604, was on the 31st of March.

[9] F. H., vol. 1., p. 328.

[10] This is confirmed by Ezekiel 40:1, compared with 2 Kings 25:8, for the twenty-fifth year of the captivity was the fourteenth year after the destruction of Jerusalem (viz., the nineteenth of Nebuchadnezzar), reckoned inclusively according to the ordinary practice of the Jews.

[11] These results will appear at a glance by reference to the table appended.

[12] As this event was in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 25:8), and the captivity began in his eighth year (2 Kings 24:12).

[13] Clinton, F. H.. , vol. 1., p. 319.

[14] Ibid., pp. 328-329.

[15] Fasti H., vol. 1., p. 319.

[16] Daniel, p. 401.

[17] Five Great Mon., 4. 488.

[18] Treatise, Rosh Hashanah, 1. 1.

[19] These dates are Clinton's, subject to remarks in App. 1., ante. They are selected mainly to throw light on Daniel's visions. The names of historians, etc., are introduced in the fifth century B. C. to indicate the character of the age in which the prophetic era of the seventy weeks began.

APPENDIX 2. Back to Top

MISCELLANEOUS: WHO AND WHEN

NOTE A

ARTAXERXES LONGIMANUS AND THE CHRONOLOGY OF HIS REIGN

So thorough is the unanimity with which the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah is now admitted to be Longimanus, that it is no longer necessary to offer proof of it. Josephus indeed attributes these events to Xerxes, but his history of the reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes is so hopelessly in error as to be utterly worthless. In fact he transposes the events of these respective reigns (see, Ant. 11., caps 5: and 7.) Nehemiah's master reigned not less than thirty-two years (Nehemiah 13:6); and his reign was subsequent to that of Darius Hystaspes (comp. Ezra 6:1 and 7:1), and prior to that of Darius Nothus (Nehemiah 12:22). He must, therefore, be either Longimanus or Mnemon, for no other king after Darius Hystaspes reigned thirty-two years, and it is certain Nehemiah's mission was not so late as the twentieth of Artaxerxes Mnemon, viz., B.C. 385.

This appears, first, from the general tenor of the history; second, because this date is later than that of Malachi, whose prophecy must have been considerably later than the time of Nehemiah; and third, because Eliashib, who was high priest when Nehemiah came to Jerusalem, was grandson of Jeshua, who was high priest in the first year of Cyrus (Nehemiah 3:1; 12:10; Ezra 2:2; 3:2); and from the first year of Cyrus (B.C. 536), to the twentieth of Artaxerxes Longimanus (B.C. 445), was ninety-one years, leaving room for precisely three generations. [1]

Moreover, the eleventh chapter of Daniel, if read aright, affords conclusive proof that the prophetic era dated from the time of Longimanus. The second verse is generally interpreted as though it were but a disconnected fragment of history, leaving a gap of over 130 years between it and the third verse, whereas the chapter is a consecutive prediction of events within the period of the seventy weeks. There were to be yet (i.e., after the issuing of the decree to build Jerusalem) "three kings in Persia." These were Darius Nothus (mentioned in Nehemiah 12:22), Artaxerxes Mnemon, and Ochus; the brief reigns of Xerxes II., Sogdianus, and Arogus being overlooked as being, what in fact they were, utterly unimportant. and indeed two of them are omitted in the Canon of Ptolemy. "The fourth" (and last) king was Darius Codomanus, whose fabulous wealth — the accumulated horde of two centuries — attracted the cupidity of the Greeks. What sums of money Alexander found in Susa is unknown, but the silver ingots and Hermione purple he seized after the battle of Arbela were worth over [2] £ 20, 000, 000. Verse 2 thus reaches to the close of the Persian Empire; verse 3 predicts the rise of Alexander the Great; and verse 4 refers to the division of his kingdom among his four generals.

According to Clinton (F. H., vol. 2., p. 380) the death of Xerxes was in July B.C. 465, and the accession of Artaxerxes was in February B.C. 464. Artaxerxes of course ignored the usurper's reign, which intervened, and reckoned his own reign from the day of his father's death. Again, of course, Nehemiah, being an officer of the court, followed the same reckoning. Had he computed his master's reign from February 464, Chisleu and Nisan could not have fallen in the same regnal year (Nehemiah 1:1; 2:1). No more could they, had be, according to the Jewish practice, computed it from Nisan.

Dr. Pusey here remarks, [3]

"The accession of Artaxerxes after the seven months of the assassin Artabanus would fall in the middle of 464. For it is clear from the sequel of the months in Nehemiah 1:2., and Ezra 7:7- 9, that Chisleu fell earlier in the year of his reign than Nisan, and Nisan than Ab. Then the reign of Artaxerxes must have begun between Ab and Chisleu B.C. 464."

This is altogether a mistake. As already mentioned, Chisleu and Nisan fell in the same regnal year; and so also did Nisan and the first day of Ab (Ezra 7:8, 9). But the 1st Ab of B.C. 459 (the seventh year of Artaxerxes) fell on or about the 16th July, and therefore the passages quoted are perfectly consistent with the received chronology, and serve merely to enable us to fix the dates more accurately still, and to decide that the death of Xerxes and the epoch of the reign of Artaxerxes should be assigned to the latter part of July B.C. 465.

Those who are not versed in what writers on prophecy have written on this subject, will be surprised to learn that this date is assailed as being nine years too late. All chronologers are agreed that Xerxes began to reign in B.C. 485, and that the death of Artaxerxes was in B.C. 423; and so far as I know, no writer of repute, unbiased by prophetic study, assigns as the epoch of the latter king's reign any other date than B.C. 465 [4] (or 464; see ante). This is the date according to the Canon of Ptolemy, which has been followed by all historians; and it is confirmed by the independent testimony of Julius Africanus, who, in his Chronagraphy, [5] describes the twentieth year of Artaxerxes as the 115th year of the Persian Empire [reckoned from Cyrus, B.C. 559] and the fourth year of the eighty-third Olympiad. This fixes B.C. 464 as the first year of that king, as it was in fact the year of his actual accession.

It was Archbishop Ussher who first raised a doubt upon the point. Lecturing on "Daniel's Seventies" [6] in Trinity College, Dublin, in the year 1613, difficulties connected with his subject suggested an inquiry which led him ultimately to put back the reign of Longimanus to B.C. 474, which is the date given in his Annales Vet. Test. The same date was afterwards adopted by Vitringa, and a century later by Kruger. But Hengstenberg is regarded as the champion of this view, and the treatise thereon in his Chronology [7] omits nothing that can be urged in its favor.

The objections raised to the received chronology depend mainly on the statement of Thucydides, that Artaxerxes was on the throne when Themistocles reached the Persian Court; for it is urged that the flight of Themistocles could not have been so late as B.C. 464. [8] But, as Dr. Pusey remarks, t "they have not made any impression on our English writers who have treated of Grecian history." [9] In common with the German writers, Dr. Pusey ignores Ussher altogether in the controversy, though Dr. Tregelles [10] . rightly claims for him the foremost place for scholarship among those who have advocated the earlier date. The apparent difficulty of making the prophecy and the chronology agree has led Dr. Pusey, following Prideaux, in opposition to Scripture, to fix the seventh year of Artaxerxes as the epoch of the seventy weeks, while it induced Dr. Tregelles [11] sheltering behind Ussher's name, to adopt the B.C. 455 date for the twentieth year of that king's reign. Bishop Lloyd when affixing Ussher's dates to our English Bible reverted to the received chronology when dealing with the book of Nehemiah.

It is unnecessary to enter here upon a discussion of this question. Nothing short of a reproduction of the entire argument in favor of the new chronology would satisfy its advocates; and for my present purpose it is a sufficient answer to that argument, that although everything has been urged which ingenuity and erudition can suggest in support of it, it has been rejected by all secular writers. Unfulfilled prophecy is only for the believer, but prophecy fulfilled has a voice for all. It is fortunate, therefore, that the proof of the fulfillment of this prophecy of the seventy weeks does not depend on an elaborate disquisition, like that of Hengstenberg's, to disturb the received chronologies.

One point only I will notice. It is urged in favor of limiting the reign of Xerxes to eleven years, that no event is mentioned in connection with his reign after his eleventh year. The answer is obvious: first, that it is to Greek historians, writing after his time, that we are mainly indebted for our knowledge of Persian history; and secondly, the battles of Thermopylae and Salamis may well have induced a king of the temperament and character of Xerxes to give himself up to a life of indolent ease and sensual enjoyment.

But further, the twelfth year of Xerxes is expressly mentioned in the book of Esther (3:7), and the narrative proves that his reign continued to the twelfth (Jewish) month of his thirteenth year. [12] Hengstenberg answers this by asserting that it was customary with Hebrew writers to include in a regnal era the years of a co-regency where it existed, and he appeals to the case of Nebuchadnezzar as a proof of such a custom. [13] If Nebuchadnezzar's reign was in fact reckoned thus, this solitary instance would establish no such custom, for it would prove nothing more than that the Jews in Jerusalem, knowing nothing of the politics or customs of Babylon, reckoned Nebuchadnezzar's reign upon a system of their own. But I believe this theory about Nebuchadnezzar's reign is a thorough blunder. If in the sacred history he is called King of Babylon, in connection with his first invasion of Judea, it is because the writers were his contemporaries. "Lord Beaconsfield was Chancellor of the Exchequer in Lord Derby's administrations" is a statement which will be rightly condemned as an anachronism if made by the historian of the future, but it is precisely the language which would have been used by a contemporary writer acquainted with the living statesman. I have shown elsewhere (App. 1., ante) that the Jews reckoned Nebuchadnezzar's reign according to their own custom, as dating from the Nisan preceding his accession. Unless, therefore, some entirely new case can be made in support of the co-regency theory of Xerxes's reign, it remains that the book of Esther is absolutely conclusive against Ussher's date, and in favor of the received chronology.


NOTE B

DATE OF THE NATIVITY

IN treating of the date of the birth of our Lord, the arguments in favor of an earlier date than that which is here adopted are too well known to be left unnoticed. Dr. Farrar states the question thus in his Life of Christ (Excursus 1.):--

"Our one most certain datum is obtained from the tact that Christ was born before the death of Herod the Great. The date of that event is known with absolute certainty, for (2) Josephus tells us that he died thirty-seven years after he had been declared king by the Romans. Now it is known that he was declared King A. U. C. 714; and, therefore, since Josephus always reckons his years from Nisan to Nisan, and counts the initial and terminal fractions of Nisan as complete years, Herod must have died between Nisan A. U. C. 750 and Nisan A. U. C. 751, i.e., between B.C. 4 and B.C. 3 of our era. (2.) Josephus says that on the night in which Herod ordered Judas, Matthias, and their abettors to be burnt, there was an eclipse of the moon. Now this eclipse took place on the night of March 12th, B.C. 4, and Herod was dead at least seven days before the Passover, which, if we accept the Jewish reckoning, fell in that year on April 12th. But according to the clear indication of the Gospels, Jesus must have been born at least forty days before Herod's death. It is clear, therefore, that under no circumstances can the nativity have taken place later than February B.C. 4." [14]

This passage is a typical illustration of the relative value attached to the statements of sacred and profane historians. In the histories of Josephus an incidental mention of an eclipse or of the length of a king's reign suffices to give "absolute certainty," before which the clearest and most definite statements of Holy Writ must give place, albeit they relate to matters of such transcendent interest to the writers that even if the Evangelists be dismissed to the category of mere historians, no mistake was possible.

The following is a more temperate statement of the question, by the Archbishop of York, in an article (Jesus Christ) contributed to Smith's Bible Dictionary. —

"Herod the Great died, according to Josephus, in the thirty-seventh year after he was appointed king. His elevation coincides with the consulship of Cn Domitius Calvinus and C. Asinius Pollio, and this determines the date A. U. C. 714. There is reason to think that in such calculations Josephus reckons the years from the month Nisan to the same month, and also that the death of Herod took place in the beginning of the thirty-seventh year, or just before the Passover; if then thirty-six complete years are added, they give the year of Herod's death, A. U. C. 750."

According to this, the commonly received view, Herod's death took place within the first six days of a Jewish year, and these days are reckoned as a complete year in his regnal era. Now it is admitted that in computing time the Jews generally included both the terminal units of a given period. A signal and well-known instance of this is afforded by the words of the Lord Himself, when He declared He would lie in death for three days and nights. What meaning did these words convey to Jews? Four-and-twenty hours after His burial they came to Pilate and said, "We remember that that deceiver said, while He was yet alive, 'After three days I will rise again;' command, therefore, that the sepulcher be made sure until the third day." [15] Had that Sunday passed leaving the seal upon the tomb unbroken, the Pharisees would boldly have proclaimed their triumph; whereas, by our modes of reckoning, the resurrection ought to have been deferred till Monday night, or Tuesday morning. [16]

Again, it may be assumed that Herod's accession dated in fact from B.C. 40, and, therefore, that B.C. 4 was the thirty-seventh and last year of his reign. Further it is probable he died shortly before a Passover. The question remains whether his death occurred at the beginning or toward the close of the Jewish year.

Josephus relates that when the event took place Archelaus remained in seclusion during seven days, and then presented himself publicly to the people. His first reception was not unfavorable, though he had to yield to many a popular demand then pressed on him; and after the ceremonial, he "went and offered sacrifice to God, and then betook himself to feast with his friends." Soon, however, discontent and disaffection began to smolder and spread, and fresh demands were made upon the king. To these again he yielded, though with less grace, instructing his general to remonstrate with the people, and persuade them to defer their petitions till his return from Rome. These appeals only increased the prevailing dissatisfaction, and a riot ensued. The king still continued to parley with the seditious, but, "upon the approach of the feast of unleavened bread," when the capital became thronged with the Jews from the country, the state of things became so alarming that Archelaus determined; to suppress the rioters by force of arms. This was "upon the approach of the feast," and the Jews considered the Passover was "nigh at hand" upon the eighth day of Nisan, when they repaired to Jerusalem for the festival. [17]

The Passover began the 14th Nisan. This final riot took place during the preceding week. The earlier riot occurred before that again, £e., before the date of the incursion of Jews for the festival, the 8th Nisan. This again was preceded by some interval, measured from the day following the court mourning for Herod, which had lasted seven days. The history, therefore, establishes conclusively that Herod's death was more than fourteen days before the Passover, and therefore at the close and not at the beginning of a Jewish year.

But which year? His death must have been after the eclipse of 13th March, B.C. 4 [18</