Talk:Chronology of the Bible

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 May 2020 and 23 July 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nmonserrat.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Ussher's method

A few minutes ago, the article claimed, "This was widely accepted among European Protestants, but in the English-speaking world, Archbishop James Ussher (1581-1656) switched the focus back to the birth of Christ, which he found had occurred in AM 4000, equivalent, he believed, to 4 BCE, and thus arrived at 4004 BCE as the date of Creation; he was not the first to reach this result, but his chronology was so detailed that his dates were incorporated into the margins of English Bibles for the next two hundred years."

That's not how Ussher did it. He didn't calculate a 4000-year span and then use the birth of Christ to date the creation. And the Hughes citation doesn't say that he did. He calculated the 4004 BCE figure in a way that doesn't depend on Christ's birthdate at all. Ussher worked through the biblical dates from Genesis to the accession of Amel-Marduk, and then used secular data to pinpoint when the accession of Amel-Marduk was (Ussher thought 563, modern scholarship says 562). The misconception that Ussher calculated a 4000-year period to Christ, calculated the birthdate of Christ, and then fixed the creation that way is common, but baseless. Hughes favorably cites Barr's summary of Ussher method. Here's Barr:

<<But we must now go back and consider how Ussher actually worked. First of all, he did not work, as many people suppose he worked, by taking the number of generations and multiplying them by what was supposed to be a probable average: a little thought quickly shows that this cannot fit the biblical material. Ussher worked entirely, or almost entirely, from express and exact dates, as far as concerns the biblical material. But this leads us to a fundamental point which explains why Ussher, like other biblical chronologists, could not work by simply adding the figures of the Bible together. First of all, though most biblical dates are probably unambiguous, a certain number could conceivably be taken in more than one way, and this, as we shall see, is an essential factor in a . number of Ussher's decisions. But, more important, the Bible in itself cannot furnish us with a chronology. Putting it crudely, this is because the Bible does not specify the chronological distance between the Old Testament and the New. No event in the New Testament is given a precise date stating distance from any Old Testament event. Putting it in another way, unlike our A.D.1B.C. system, which dates events back from the first century, the Bible dates events from the creation forward. It is impossible from the Old Testament, taken alone, to know how far back its events had lain in history. At the end of the Old Testament, e.g. the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, no firm dating is given. The construction of any biblical chronology required a synchronism with profane history, with extra-biblical data, at some point or other. Ussher himself tells us (viii.6-7) what the essential synchronism for him was. It was the death of Nebuchadnezzar, and his succession by his son Amel-marduk, known in English as Evil-Merodach. According to the "Chal- daean" historical tradition, which means through Berossus (Josephus, C. Ap., i.146-50), this took place in the year which from Greek and Roman history can be reckoned back to and fixed as 563.9 This year was, according to I1 Kings xxv.27ff., the 37th year of the exile of Jehoiachin. This synchronism thus provides an entry from without into the latter part of the chronological figures of the Books of Kings, and from these it was possible, it was thought, to reckon back to the time of Solomon, and from there, step by step, to creation itself. Now Ussher was highly successful at this point, for this date was historically almost correct: Nebuchadnezzar did die in the year 562.>> -- James Barr, Why the World was Created in 4004 B.C.

Inconsistencies?

I ran through the calculations, and everything seems to be two years off.

Creation of Adam = AM 2

Birth of Abraham = AM 1948 (=2+130+105+90+70+65+162+65+187+182+500+100+35+30+34+30+32+30+29+70)

Entrance into Egypt = AM 2238 (=1948+100+60+130)

Exodus = AM 2668 (=2238+430)

Solomon's Temple = AM 3148 (=2668+480)

Exile = AM 3578 (=3148+430)

Any idea where my extra 2 years are coming from? (I suspect maybe it's because I start counting from AM 2 rather than 0? But is there any reason why we're starting at 0? The AM dating system begins in AM 1, not 0. And according to the Anno Mundi article, Adam was created in AM 2, not in AM 1.)

73.133.224.40 (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Did you account for Arphaxad being born 2 years (1658) after the flood (1656)? "These [are] the generations of Shem: Shem [was] an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:" {Genesis 11:10 KJV} This is also saying that Shem was 100 years old ... two years after (1658) the flood (1656). 64.139.122.158 (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I start at 0, the reason being is that zero is a placeholder, not a year, in other words, creation started at nothing and only at the 1st year anniversary (aka a year later than nothing) can you count that as a year. Example: a child born is not considered a year old until it's lived a full year. Zero is a placeholder, not a year. Another way to understand this is simple math: start at 0 and add 130 years and you're still at 130 years, but start at 1 and add 130 years and you're now at 131 years. There is no "year zero" but there is a placeholder number 0 from which to begin a count. Creation began at 0 (nothing) and sometime in Adam's 130th year he had his son Seth for whom the chronology continues. I think, when the bible gives set years that's what the year should be and although there is no zero, neither is there a 1 in the genealogy, all we have is 130 to start with and Adam couldn't have been 130 years old if the count begins at 1 AM (he would have been 131 years old). Creation starts at the placeholder number of 0.

BTW, I see you did miss the 2 years after the flood and therein is your error of missing two years (more on that above). 64.139.122.158 (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have logged in first before commenting. LaNiHa (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Standard Biblical Chronology is highly disputed before David

With Methualeh being a 900 year old human, standard biblical chronology has been disputed for several thousand years.

There are thousands of papers of people trying to correct for these differences, like dividing Methusalehs 900 years by 12 to get 75 years old.

Here is an 1 example of a proposed corrected Biblical Timeline: https://www.academia.edu/20426570/Hebrew_chronology_from_Noah_to_Moses RichMcQuillen (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Paul and 430 Years

Paul was talking about covenants and their ratification (Galatians 3:15-18). The 430 years refers to when the covenant was ratified, which happened when Israel entered Egypt, long after Abraham died. So the 430 years agrees with Exodus 12:40-41. This is easier to see in literal translations. 69.168.251.84 (talk) 04:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)