Appendix I: Chronological Treatise and Tables
He 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 Dan. i. 1 and Jer. xxv. 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. 1056-5, 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
* Bishop Lloyd, to whom was entrusted the task of editing the A.V., in this respect made a few alterations, as ¢2. gv., in the book of Nehemiah he rejected Ussher’s chronology, and inserted the true historical date of the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus.
; ee - Fs Oe 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. Sceptics 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 B.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.” *
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 (ii. 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 vi. 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.
In Acts xiii, 18-21, St. Paul, in treating of the
* Rawlinson’s Herodotus, iv., p. 212. “Xerxes (old Persian Khshayarsh4) is derived by Sir H. Rawlinson from Khshaya, ‘a King’” (Zézd. III., 446, App. Book VI. note A).
+ Pages 81-85, ante.
er cia tele 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 Sam. vii.) and the election of Saul. Accordingly he estimates the period between the Exodus and the temple as 573 + 27 + 12 years = 612 years.*
Clinton’s leading dates, therefore, are as follows : — B.C. 4138. — Adam.
2482. — The Deluge.
y 2055. — The Call of Abraham.
1625. — The Exodus.
1096. — The Election of Saul.
1056. — David.
“.1016. — Solomon.
* Josephus appears to confirm this in Av. xx. 10 § 1, where he specifies 612 years between the Exodus and the temple, but in Az. viii. 3 § 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.
B.C. 976. — Rehoboam.
606 — The Captivity (72, the Servitude to
Babylon).
In this chronology Browne proposes three corrections (Ordo S@c., §§ 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 tree 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 28
From Adam to the Deluge (B.C. 4141
to B.C. 2485) is. 4:. 165655
From the Deluge to the Covenant
(BC. 2485 to B.C. 2055)is.. 430 w
Io
Lad
5 ek Pa
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: gros lOSG 2,
The Covenant here mentioned is that recorded in Gen. xii. 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 vii. 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 Gen. xi, 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.t The fact however is obvious from these statements, 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
Cf: Browne Ordo Sac. § 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.
+ Comp. Gen. xi. 26, 31, 32; xil. 4.
Abraham’s birth we must needs turn to the history, and - there we learn it was one hundred and thirty years, *
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.
Again. According to Exod. xii. 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 Gen. xv. 13, quoted by Stephen in Acts vii. 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 Gal. iii. 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 Gen. xv. 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
* Clinton, /. H,, vol i., p. 299. Alford’s supercilious comments on this (Gr. Zest., Acts vii. 4) could be easily disposed of were the occasion opportune for the discussion this would involve. Indeed a passing reference to Gen xxv. 1, 2, would have modified his statements,
t+ Gen. xiii. 8, 9.
Sab aed
‘s word which was accurately fulfilled, for Moses was
the fourth in descent from Jacob.*
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.
rom 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. 1006-5) and the dedication of the second temple in the sixth year of Darius Hystaspes of Persia
(B.C. 515), was 490 years.f
* His mother was a daughter of Levi (Exod. ii. 1). t It is a remarkable coincidence that the era of the second
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 guasi 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.
temple was so nearly this same period of 490 years, BC. 515 to about B.c. 18, when Herod rebuilt it.
First he confounds the seventy years of the desolations, predicted in Jer. xxv., with the seventy years of the servitude, which had already begun. Then as the prophecy of Jer. xxv. 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 (Dan. i. 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 Cyclopedia, 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 Jer. xxv. 1. It partially rests on 2 Chron. xxxvi. 6, which is itself not in perfect accordance with 2 Kings xxiv. 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 Chron. xxxvi. 6 and 9); and even so we do not obtain accordance with the received interpretation of Dan. i. 1-3.”
This writers conclusions are adopted by Dean Stanley in his Fewish Church (vol. ii., 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! *
A reference to the Five Great Monarchies (vol. iii., 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 — “
“* Compare 2 Kings xxiv. 12 with Dan. ii & a man of princely rank and of the highest culture,* 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 Chron, xxxvi. 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 (Dan. i. 1). His fourth year was current with the first of Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. xxv. 1). This accords with the definite
* Dan, i. 3, 4.
statement of Berosus that Nebuchadnezzar’s first expedition took place before his actual accession (Jos., Apion, i. 19). According to the canon of Ptolemy, the accuracy of which has been fully established, the reign of Nebuchadnezzar dates from B.C. 604, 2¢, 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. Ezek. i. 2 and 2 Kings xxiv. 12); and in the thirty-seventh year of the captivity, Nebuchadnezzar’s successor was on the throne (2 Kings xxv. 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.* 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
* Clinton, F. #., vol. i., p. 367.
—regnal years, computing them from Nisan to Nisan.* In B.C. 604 the Ist Nisan fell on or about the 1st April,f 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” (Jer. xxv. 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. 600.
This result is most remarkably confirmed by Clinton, who fixes the summer of B.C, 606 as the date of Nebuchadnezzar’s first expedition.t
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? (Dan. i. 5, 18; ii. 1). Daniel, a citizen of Babylon, and a courtier withal, naturally and of course computed his sovereign’s reign according to
™ See p. 240, ost.
+ The Paschal new moon, in B.C. 604, was on the 31st of March.
t ¥. #,, vol. i, p. 328.
ES Ne rp) ee NERS EG e “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 XXiv, 12), Zé. 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. Ezek. xxiv. 1, 2, with 2 Kings xxv. 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 xxv. 2-8 with Ezek. xxxiii. 21).
It follows therefore that Jehoiachin (Feconiah) must have been taken at the close of the Jewish year (“when the year was expired,” 2 Chron. xxxvi. 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.f And
See p. 253, Post. + This is confirmed by Ezek. xl 1, compared with 2 Kings xxv. 8, for the twenty-fifth year of the captivity was the fourteenth 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.”
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 sceptre 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,
year after the destruction of Jerusalem (viz., the nineteenth of Nebuchadnezzar), reckoned ¢uclusively according to the ordinary pratice of the Jews.
* These results will appear at a glance by reference to the table appended.
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” (Jer. xxvii. 6, 8 11; and comp. chap. xxxviii. 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, on the other hand, was a prediction for the rebellious
Jews who remained in Jerusalem after the servitudehad 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 xxv. 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, #2., 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* 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.f
This scheme is practically the same as Clinton’s,f 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 Awgust B.C. 609, and Zedekiah’s from Fune B.C. 598, his attention not having been called to the Jewish practice of computing reigns from Visan; 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,
* As this event was in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings xxv. 8), and the captivity began in his eighth year (2 Kings xxiv. 12).
t Clinton, 7. 4., vol. i., p. 319.
It Ibid., pp. 328-329.
a eT ele, ae ee ee gee;. “+? As ve oe Fe ‘ — — 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 BC. 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, #e., B.C. 561, which date fixes the whole chronology as Clinton himself conclusively argues.* ‘It follows from this also that Zedekiah’s date must be B.C. 597, and not 598.
The chronology adopted by Dr. Puseyf 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 Jehoiakimt 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.§
The correctness of this scheme will, I presume, be admitted, as regards the cardinal point of difference between it and Clinton’s chronology, namely,
* Fasti H., vol. i., p. 319. + Daniel, p. 401. t Jer. xxxvi. 9. § Five Great Mon., iv. 488.
be
Sot gt Pe ca oe ae eee ‘ae; 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 (Ordo S@c., §§ 162-169). He arbitrarily assumes that Jehoiachin’s captivity and Zedekiah’s reign began om the same day. This leads him to assume further (1) that they were reckoned from the same day, viz., the Ist Nisan, and (2) that Nebuchadnezzar’s royal years dated from some date between Ist Nisan and 10 Ab 606 (§ 166). Both these positions are untenable. (1) The Jews certainly reckoned the reigns of their kings from Ist 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.
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 Ist Nisan (March — April). For example, B.c. 604 is the year beginning the rst April, 604; and B.C. 589 is the year beginning the 15th March, 589.
,
According to the Mishna,* “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 impart 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,t 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.
* Treatise, Rosh Hashanah,. 1,
+ See p. 234, ante.
‘apuo ‘Obe “A ‘syivutar Axoywur[dxe 995
b ZI £ 11 S6S
“(1 ‘axe sot) $09 ‘uvstyy sx Suiuursoq ava oyy ‘9”2 “ae272z9U
YWIdWNTL ANOOTS AHL AO NOILWIIGIAC FHL OL NOTAMVA OL AGNLIANAS AHL WOU
(Cz ‘1 1 ‘yazq) Aandvs oyy Jo re9k ws oy) paw (Ez mxx sBuryy z) waosseg syvisof wor read yiof ayy ut Asoydoad 0y uvdaq jaiyozq
‘SNAVKAN ANV SLNZAR
‘(panuzu0) — ATGVL IWOID0T ONOUWHD
TMHOnRD AG
wOrIEyOSOq]
ayy jo wq
‘s)
*opnqtaras
ayy jo BIg
6: Lg
3! sgh
“i 69S
91 06S
St 16S
v z6S
£1 £6
ZI +65
ae he: §
yal e
sé ft
Be,”
BE *C1€ ‘uy “szaf) ,, wosud jo = NO 110y JYSNo0IG,, seM uTYoLIOYyaf mak sq Uy “1vak ywyY Jo aso]9 ayy SpIeMo7 11y querms sem Ayandeo s,uiyorioyaf jo reok yIZE oyy puw ‘19S Judy wis ynoqe 10) uvsiyy 481 Surpaooad avak ayy “a’z ‘1eak ysimof oyy st afquy siya ut zoS zeak ay3 yng “(aun ‘z£zd gas) ‘19S ‘ova (‘uef yII1) YoY, ISI Surmuideq re9hk 9Yy UI SBA (YOepOloPy-[IAq) WepesON[] JO uoIsse9” ayy ‘uOULD 24y 0y SUIpIODDy
“(1 Te “Yozq) weresnsef yo uononzysap aqy woyy (pau0yoar Aqyensn smof omy se ‘aazsmprut) yib ayy sem Ayandes ayy jo wok WSz OL
o£
6z
ob
6£
Le
ob
Ww f (ta “A ‘ueq) rezzeysjag. Jo wad pat 2yy Ul sv yO dyy puY Wey 94y Jo UOIsIA sIY pue ‘Iva 4ST DY] UT SEA S]stag MOT OY JO UOISIA sJoruLC] “SMIPtUOgeNT ‘FaYITy sty JO IuIpayT ay) UY JUador — puvseq (suoyduosuy ayy jo anznsesjeg yj) avzzeysjeg ‘xvaX sigy ax0jaq 10 uy 6b +
ov S
Sb oS
be €s
fb zs
ab 1S
1+ oS
ov 6b
6£ gr
gt Le
LE gb
9f Sb
*snjoposayzy Aq snjoudqe’y
pue ‘suondyosuy ayy ur impeuunqeNy popfed st uourDy ayy Jo smipeuoqeN eYL| SE tb ve fv
¢e zb
ze 1v
Org os
ge 85
“SHUVAAY GNV SLNGAR 22 FS
BS le
a ‘(panuyuo2) — ATIVL TVWOIDOTONOUHD
943 jo eIg
uojAqeq
jo sdury
06b “(zz-St “1A wiz) SIS UBsINT Ul AOAOSSeg OY) Je poyLoIpep sem ojdwMay, sy,
(Gx ‘1A vazqy) snieq jo ava 449 oYy Ul Awpy Jo Aep pa€ oyy uo poysiuy sem ojdwoy, ayy,
“(aun ‘ol ‘doos ‘gt 1 ‘SeyT) snuecy jo wok puz oyy ut yyuour 416 oYy Jo Avp yIbz 2y UO pie, sem ojduiay, puosasg ayy JO uoIjepunoy oY], ‘suOIe[OSaCy OYy JO Purylazuv ‘L§ ‘d) sadseyshpy suirecy
(Mx-’x ‘UvC]) UOISIA sey sjorurcy Jo 1497,
Jo “O9PNIIAINS 9y JO pus: woyusnzaf 07 wanjor 0y SMOf oYy SurztxoyNe snazS5 Jo oo109(7
‘reo Siqy UI SEM SyaaM OL ay) JO UOISIA SjoluLCY ‘su.kp Aq Uoyey UO]Aque
19
09
65
“7 snug
AMMO NO
*sask
=
tuvryamroon
*snafkp
z
*(opaqt oy)
snizecy
“i
or
o1S
o1S
“1S
gis
61S
ozs
1zS
zzS
€zS
4)
SzS
92S
Lz
92S
62S
ofS
1£S
zes
ees
es
ses
9£S
Les
gS
6€S
ofS
; Sieg ee fey te th oa Ps, a i oe Fe ee ee eee, ee ee
‘yup ‘ez pue £6 ‘dd sag ft
“LEW TRD +
‘quv fcx ‘daeg *sreaA 90143 Aq ASojouoayp s.uojuyD woy JoyIp sozep Vso],
eal osor ‘uorxyIonIy SY T — IsuyD Ais
? *sivaA 9goz ‘MRT DYL — sosop SzgI
a ‘suvak of
S {‘yueusaoy oy, — weyrqy SSoz
*sreah ofb
Ny ‘sivak ggoz ‘Pool, FY L — yeon,, Sgbz
= ‘exeah 9591 ‘uoIeaIy) OYE — wepy, IPP
‘Oa
*“NOIXIWIONUD AHL ANV NOILVAYO FHL NAIMLAT LNIOd IVULNAO AHL SVA. WVHVUdV AO TIVO AHL LVHL DNIMOHS
‘SWSITATIVUVd IVOISOTONOUHO AO WIAVL
We
ais Lave =
CERTAIN LEADING DATEs IN History, SACRED
BC.
2055,
1625.
1585.
1096.
1056.
1o16.
1014.
1006,
776.
753:
747-
726.
721.
697.
642.
640.
627.
608.
606.
AND PROFANE.*
The Covenant with Abraham.
The Exodus. The giving of the Law.
The entrance into Canaan under Joshua.
Saul. The kingdom established.
David.
Solomon
The Temple founded.
The Temple dedicated.
Rehoboam. Israel revolts from Judah, and becomes a separate kingdom under Jeroboam.
Era of the Olympiads begins.
Era of Rome (A. U. C.) begins.
Era of Nabonassar begins.
Hezekiah king of Judah (reigned 29 years).
Israel (the ten tribes) carried captive to Assyria.
Manasseh (55 years).
Amon (2 years).
Josiah (31 years).
Jeremiah began to prophesy.
Jehoiakim (11 years).
BaBYLON. — Jerusalem taken by Nebuchadnezzar
The servitude began.
* These dates are Clinton’s, subject to remarks in App. I., anée. 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.
rn -
BC.
598. Jerusalem taken the second time by the Babylonians. — King Jehoiachin’s captivity. *
58g. Jerusalem besieged the third time by the Babylonians. “he The Desolations.
587. Jerusalem taken and destroyed.
561. Death of Nebuchadnezzar and accession of Evil-Merodach.
559. Cyrus begins to reign in Persia..
538. Persis. — 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. The foundation of the second 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 Thermopylz and Salamis.
471. Themistocles banished by ostracism. Thucydides the 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 vii.)
449. Persians defeated by the Athenians at Salamis in Cyprus.
445. Era of the 7o weeks begins, Twentieth year of Artaxerxes: Jerusalem restored. Herodotus, ef. a 39, engaged on his history.
Laat — = a - 3, - .-
Fs.
oy.
. CHRONOLOGICAL TREATISE AND TABLES. 249
B.C
429.
424.
405.
397:
359.
336.
333-
323.
312.
301.
170.
168.
165.
63.
40.
37:
Plato born (died 347).
Darius Nothus of Persia (Neh. xii. 22).
Artaxerxes Mnemon of Persia.
Malachi. The dispensation of ‘“‘the Prophets” closes. End of the first week of Daniel’s 70 weeks.
Ochus of Persia.
Darius Codomanus of Persia.
Greece. — Battle of Issus. (Battle of Granicus, 334; and of Arbela, 331.)
Death of Alexander the Great.
Era of the Seleucide begins.
Battle of Ipsus.
Jerusalem taken by Antiochus Epiphanes.
The temple defiled by Antiochus.
Jerusalem retaken by Judas Maccabeus. The temple cleansed, and the Feast of the Dedication appointed. (1 Macc. iv. 52-59; John x. 22).
RomeE. — Pompey takes Jerusalem.
Herod the Great appointed king of Judea by the Romans.
Herod takes Jerusalem, and is acknowledged as king by the Jews.
. Battle of Actium.
. Augustus Emperor of Rome.
The Nativity.
. Death of Herod. Archelaus made Ethnarch of
Judea, and Herod Antipas set over Galilee.
. Tiberius Emperor of Rome (from rgth August).. 15th year of Tiberius, from 19th Aug. A.D. 28, to
19th Aug. 29. The Lord’s ministry began in this year, Luke iii.
a 32. The crucifixion (at the fourth Passover of the Lord’s
ministry). ae
THE JewisH MonrHs. =
Nisan, or Abib. P March — April aes
Zif,orlyar... April — May. <i
Sivan. ° °: May — June. ee
Tammuz... ° June — July. a)
Ell.) lel A edie:
Tisri, or Ethanim.. Sept. — Oct. anes
Bul, or Marchesvan Oct. — Nov. ge f
. Chisleu.; -: Nov. — Dec. bed
oe:” Tebetth~... |. Dec — Jam
pa Sebat.. «. Jan — Feb Si
Ader 4; Feb. — March. +r
Ve-Adar (the intercalary month).
Full information on the subject of the present ‘‘ Hebrew Calendar” will be found in an article so entitled in Zncye, Brit. (gth ed.), and also in Lindo’s Fewish Calendar, a Jewish work. The Mishna is the earliest work relating to it.
eee eee te Po ee et ee eS we
4
oo