by Sir Robert Anderson
by Sir Robert Anderson
Philologos
Religious Online Books
Philologos.org
Sir Robert Anderson
(1841-1918)
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.* 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.
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.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).
Clinton's leading dates, therefore, are as follows:--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.
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:--
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.
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]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.
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.5. His mother was a daughter of Levi (Exodus 2:1).
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."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.
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]7. Clinton, F. H., vol. 1., p. 367.
8. The Paschal new moon, in B. C. 604, was on the 31st of March.
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. 602.9. F. H., vol. 1., p. 328.
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.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.
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 598.12. 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.
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]14. Ibid., pp. 328-329.
15. Fasti H., vol. 1., p. 319.
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.16. Daniel, p. 401.
17. Five Great Mon., 4. 488.
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.
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. 589.18. Treatise, Rosh Hashanah, 1. 1.
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.
|
|
||||||
|
Jewish Year* |
Kings of Babylon |
Kings of Judah |
Era of the Servitude |
Era of the Captivity |
|
Events and Remarks |
|
B.C. |
20th year of Nabopolassar |
3rd year of Jehoiakim (Eliakim) |
1 |
- |
- |
The 3rd year of Jehoiakim, from 1st Nisan, 606, to 1st Nisan, 605. Jerusalemtaken by Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. i. 1, 2), see p. 231, ante. With this event the servitude to Babylon began, 490 years (or 70 weeks of years) after the establishment of the Kingdom under Saul. "The 4th year of Jehoiakim, that was the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar," i.e., the year beginning 1st Nisan, 605 (Jer. xxv. 1). |
|
605 |
Nebuchad |
4 |
2 |
- |
- |
|
|
604 |
2 |
5 |
3 |
- |
- |
Vision of the great image (Dan. ii). |
|
603 |
3 |
6 |
4 |
- |
- |
- |
|
602 |
4 |
7 |
5 |
- |
- |
- |
|
601 |
5 |
8 |
6 |
- |
- |
- |
|
600 |
6 |
9 |
7 |
- |
- |
- |
|
599 |
7 |
10 |
8 |
- |
- |
- |
|
598 |
8 |
11 |
9 |
1 |
- |
This year included the 3 months' reign of Jehoiachin (Jeconiah), whose captivity began in the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings xxiv. 12, see pp. 234, 236, ante). |
|
3 months of Jehoiachin |
||||||
|
597 |
9 |
Zedekiah |
10 |
2 |
- |
Reigned 11 years (2 Kings xxiv. 18). |
|
596 |
10 |
2 |
11 |
3 |
- |
- |
|
595 |
11 |
3 |
12 |
4 |
- |
- |
|
594 |
12 |
4 |
13 |
5 |
- |
Ezekiel began to prophesy in the 30th year from Josiah's Passover (2 Kings xxiii. 23), and the 5th year of the captivity (Ezek. i. 1,2.) |
|
593 |
13 |
5 |
14 |
6 |
- |
- |
|
592 |
14 |
6 |
15 |
7 |
- |
- |
|
591 |
15 |
7 |
16 |
8 |
- |
- |
|
590 |
16 |
8 |
17 |
9 |
- |
- |
|
589 |
17 |
9 |
18 |
10 |
1 |
Jerusalem invested for the third time by Nebuchadnezzar, on the 10th day of Tebeth-- "the fast of Tebeth,"-- the epoch of the "Desolations" (see pp. 69, 70, ante). |
|
588 |
18 |
10 |
19 |
11 |
2 |
"The 10th year of Zedekiah, which was the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar" (Jer. xxxii. 1). |
|
587 |
19 |
11 |
20 |
12 |
3 |
Jerusalem taken on the 9th day of the 4th month, and burnt on the 7th day of the 5th month in the 11th year of Zedekiah, and the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings xxv. 2,3,8,9, see p. 234, ante), called "The 12th year of our Captivity" in Ezek. xxxiii. 21, the news having reached the exiles on the 5th day of the 10th month. |
|
586 |
20 |
- |
21 |
13 |
4 |
- |
|
585 |
21 |
- |
22 |
14 |
5 |
- |
|
584 |
22 |
- |
23 |
15 |
6 |
- |
|
583 |
23 |
- |
24 |
16 |
7 |
- |
|
582 |
24 |
- |
25 |
17 |
8 |
- |
|
581 |
25 |
- |
26 |
18 |
9 |
- |
|
580 |
26 |
- |
27 |
19 |
10 |
- |
|
579 |
27 |
28 |
20 |
11 |
- |
- |
|
578 |
28 |
29 |
21 |
12 |
- |
- |
|
577 |
29 |
30 |
22 |
13 |
- |
- |
|
576 |
30 |
31 |
23 |
14 |
- |
- |
|
575 |
31 |
32 |
24 |
15 |
- |
- |
|
574 |
32 |
33 |
25 |
16 |
- |
The 25th year of the Captivity was the 14th (inclusive, as the Jews usually reckoned) from the destruction of Jerusalem (Ezek. xl. 1). |
|
573 |
33 |
34 |
26 |
17 |
- |
- |
|
572 |
34 |
35 |
27 |
18 |
- |
- |
|
571 |
35 |
36 |
28 |
19 |
- |
- |
|
570 |
36 |
37 |
29 |
20 |
- |
- |
|
569 |
37 |
38 |
30 |
21 |
- |
- |
|
568 |
38 |
39 |
31 |
22 |
- |
- |
|
567 |
39 |
40 |
32 |
23 |
- |
- |
|
566 |
40 |
41 |
33 |
24 |
- |
- |
|
565 |
41 |
42 |
34 |
25 |
- |
- |
|
564 |
42 |
43 |
35 |
26 |
- |
- |
|
563 |
43 |
44 |
36 |
27 |
- |
- |
|
562 |
44 |
45 |
37 |
28 |
- |
According to the Canon, the accession of Iluoradam (Evil-Merodach) was in the year beginning 1st Thoth (11th Jan.) B.C. 561, (see p. 232, ante). But the year 562 in this table is the Jewish year, i.e., the year preceding 1st Nisan (or about 5th April 561, and the 37th year of Jehoiachin's captivity was current till towards the close of that year. In this year Jehoiachin was "brought forth out of prison." (Jer. lii. 31). |
|
561 |
Evil-Merodach |
46 |
38 |
29 |
- |
- |
|
560 |
2 |
47 |
39 |
30 |
- |
- |
|
559 |
Neriglissar or Nergalsherezer |
48 |
40 |
31 |
- |
- |
|
558 |
2 |
- |
49 |
41 |
32 |
- |
|
557 |
3 |
- |
50 |
42 |
33 |
- |
|
556 |
4 |
- |
51 |
43 |
34 |
- |
|
555 |
Nabonidus |
- |
52 |
44 |
35 |
The Nabonadius of the Canon is called Nabunnahit in the Inscriptions, and Labynetus by Herodotus. |
|
554 |
2 |
- |
53 |
45 |
36 |
- |
|
553 |
3 |
- |
54 |
46 |
37 |
- |
|
552 |
4 |
- |
55 |
47 |
38 |
- |
|
551 |
5 |
- |
56 |
48 |
39 |
- |
|
550 |
6 |
- |
57 |
49 |
40 |
- |
|
549 |
7 |
- |
58 |
50 |
41 |
- |
|
548 |
8 |
- |
59 |
51 |
42 |
- |
|
547 |
9 |
- |
60 |
52 |
43 |
- |
|
546 |
10 |
- |
61 |
53 |
44 |
- |
|
545 |
11 |
- |
62 |
54 |
45 |
- |
|
544 |
12 |
- |
63 |
55 |
46 |
- |
|
543 |
13 |
- |
64 |
56 |
47 |
- |
|
542 |
14 |
- |
65 |
57 |
48 |
- |
|
541 |
15 |
- |
66 |
58 |
49 |
In or before this year, Belshazzar (the Belsaruzur of the Inscriptions) became regent in the lifetime of his father, Nabonadius. Daniel's vision of the Four Beasts was in the 1st year, and his vision of the Ram and the Goat was in the 3rd year of Belshazzar (Dan. vii., viii.). |
|
540 |
16 |
- |
67 |
59 |
50 |
- |
|
539 |
17 |
- |
68 |
60 |
51 |
- |
|
538 |
Darius (the Mede) |
- |
69 |
61 |
52 |
Babylon taken by Cyrus. Daniel's vision of the 70 weeks was in this year. |
|
537 |
2 |
- |
70 |
62 |
53 |
- |
|
536 |
Cyrus |
- |
- |
- |
54 |
Decree of Cyrus authorizing the Jews to return to Jerusalem: end of the Servitude. (N.B. The 70th year of the Servitude was current till the 1st Nisan, 536.) |
|
535 |
2 |
- |
- |
- |
55 |
- |
|
534 |
3 |
- |
- |
- |
56 |
Year of Daniel's last vision (Dan. x.-xii.). |
|
533 |
4 |
- |
- |
- |
57 |
- |
|
532 |
5 |
- |
- |
- |
58 |
- |
|
531 |
6 |
- |
- |
- |
59 |
- |
|
530 |
7 |
- |
- |
- |
60 |
- |
|
529 |
Cambyses |
- |
- |
- |
61 |
- |
|
528 |
2 |
- |
- |
- |
62 |
- |
|
527 |
3 |
- |
- |
- |
63 |
- |
|
526 |
4 |
- |
- |
- |
64 |
- |
|
525 |
5 |
- |
- |
- |
65 |
- |
|
524 |
6 |
- |
- |
- |
66 |
- |
|
523 |
7 |
- |
- |
- |
67 |
- |
|
522 |
8 |
- |
- |
- |
68 |
- |
|
521 |
Darius I |
- |
- |
- |
69 |
Darius Hystaspes (p. 57, ante). |
|
520 |
2 |
- |
- |
- |
70 |
End of the Desolations. The foundation of the Second Temple was laid on the 24th day of the 9th month in the 2nd year of Darius (Hag. ii. 18, see p. 70, ante). |
|
519 |
3 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
518 |
4 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
517 |
5 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
516 |
6 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
The Temple was finished on the 3rd day of Adar in the 6th year of Darius (Ezra vi. 15). |
|
515 |
7 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
The Temple was dedicated at the Passover in Nisan 515 (Ezra vi. 15-22), 490 years after the dedication of Solomon's temple (B.C. 1005), and 70 years before the date of the edict to build the city (see p. 66, ante). |
| BC | ||
| 4141* Adam – The Creation | ||
| to | = 1656 yrs | |
| 2485* Noah – The Flood |
+ |
= 2086 yrs |
| to | = 430 yrs | |
| 2055 Abraham – The Covenant** | ||
| to | = 430 yrs | |
| 1625 Moses – The Law |
+ |
= 2086 yrs |
| to | = 1656 yrs | |
| AD 32*** Christ – The Crucifixion |
TABLE #3-- CERTAIN LEADING DATES
IN HISTORY, SACRED AND PROFANE[19]
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.
.
.
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.
Philologos | Bible Prophecy Research | The BPR Reference Guide | Jewish Calendar | About Us