Continued: Chapter XIV-The Period Of The Restoration

"Astronomical Observations and Calculations are regarded by many Chronologers as the surest and most unerring data for fixing the dates of various events. Eclipses can be calculated both backward and forward. They are distinguished from each other by the time when, and the place where, they can be seen, the duration of the eclipse, and the quantity or number of digits eclipsed. They have therefore been regarded as a means of correcting and determining the dates of the events at which they have occurred, and the results thus obtained have been invested with a kind of quasi-infallibility. The date of our Lord's birth is fixed by means of an eclipse of the moon recorded by Josephus as having occurred shortly before Herod's death.

"Tables of eclipses have been furnished by Chronologers and Astronomers from B.C. 753 to A.D. 70, and a list of 44 of the most remarkable of these (25 eclipses of the sun, and 19 eclipses of the moon) is given in Hales' New Analysis of Chronology. The most celebrated of these eclipses is that known as the 'Eclipse of Thales,' from the fact that Thales foretold the year in which it would happen. It has been used by Chronologers to adjust the various Eras and the Chronologies of Assyria, Babylon, Media, Lydia, Scythia, and Greece. But it has proved an apple of discord. Five several eclipses, occurring at as many different dates, have been identified by different astronomers as the one in question. The eclipse is described by Herodotus as occurring in the sixth year of the war between the Medes and the Lydians, on the river Halys, when during an obstinate battle the day suddenly became night. Both armies ceased fighting, a treaty of peace was arranged, and confirmed by a marriage compact.

"This 'Eclipse of Thales' thus described by Herodotus has been identified with the following five distinct astronomically calculated eclipses of the sun :---
"(1) On July 30, B.C. 607--By Calvisius.
"(2) On May 17, B.C. 603--By Costard, Montuda, and Kennedy.
"(3) On Sept. 19, B.C. 601--By Ussher.
"(4) On July 9, B.C. 597--By Petavius, Marsham, Bouhier and Larcher.
"(5) On May 28, B.C. 585--By Pliny, Scaliger, Newton, Ferguson, Vignoles, and Jackson.

"It will be seen from the above that there are many sources of error which must be allowed for, before attaching to the chronological result arrived at the infallibility which belongs to a mathematical calculation.

"There may be errors of observation on the part of the historian, errors of calculation on the part of the astronomer, and errors of identification on the part of the Chronologer, who may wrongly conclude that the dated eclipse calculated by the astronomer is one and the same with the eclipse described by the historian. The mistake of investing these astronomically determined chronological dates with the infallibility of a mathematical calculation, is that of assuming that the strength of the chain is that of its strongest link, instead of that of its weakest link. The astronomical calculations may be infallibly correct, and demonstrably accurate to the tick of the clock, but that only fixes the infallibility of one link in the chain, the strength and security of which cannot be transferred to the other links, or to the result as a whole. We cannot, therefore, obtain from Astronomical Observations and Calculations the material we need to enable us to use them as a standard by which to test the truth of the Chronological statements of the Old Testament. Like the testimony of the Monuments, and all the other witnesses, the testimony of Astronomy must be heard and adjudged upon; it must not presume to adjudge upon the testimony of other witnesses."

The conclusions of these different astronomers and chronologers show that we cannot depend upon astronomy for the setting of dates, since there are so very many unknown and uncertain quantities entering into each case. If the determination of a date involved only a mathematical calculation, pure and simple, we could rely absolutely upon the result obtained.

In another connection Mr. Anstey gives us a fuller discussion of the matter of eclipses and shows that they cannot be relied upon for the determination of chronological questions. This quotation is worthy of our most careful consideration.

"Prideaux puts the authority of Ptolemy's Canon above that of every other human writer. He says:--
'Ptolemy's Canon being fixed by the eclipses, the truth of it may at any time be demonstrated by astronomical calculations, and no one hath ever calculated those eclipses but hath found them fall in the times where placed; and, therefore, this being the surest guide which we have in Chronology, and it being also verified by its agreement everywhere with the Holy Scripture, it is not for the authority of any other human writer whatsoever to be receded from.'

"Lloyd and Marshall speak of it in similar terms. Halma regards it as 'the most precious monument of antiquity.'

"An examination of the table of eclipses, gathered from the works of Ptolemy by M. Halma, shows that whilst there are eclipses recorded in the 1st and 2nd years of Merodach-baladan (Mar. 19, 720, Mar. 8, 719 and Sep. 1, 719), the 5th year of Nabopolasser (Apl. 22, 600), the 7th of Cambyses (July 16, 522), and the 20th and 31st years of Darius Hystaspes (Nov. 19, 501 and Ap. 25, 490), as soon as we reach this point, at which the narrative of the Old Testament closes, and the late Persian period begins, there is from the 31st year of Darius to the Archonship of Phanostratus, no eclipse whatever on record, and consequently no astronomical data by which to fix the duration of the reigns of the Kings of the later Persian period.

"Apart from three eclipses recorded by the Chaldees on Dec. 23, 381, and June 18, 380, in the Archonship of Phanostratus, and on Dec. 10, 380, in the Archonship of Evander, there is not a single eclipse on record from the 31st year of Darius to the death of Alexander the Great.

"Ptolemy's Canon is compiled from Chaldean records in which eclipses of the moon alone are registered, the Chaldean astronomers not being able to calculate the eclipses of the sun.

"So that for the construction of that part of Ptolemy's Canon which covers the interval of 109 years between B.C. 490 and 381, eclipses are entirely wanting, and Ptolemy has to fall back upon the same materials as other Chronologers. At the very point at which the Old Testament, the Apocryphal literature, Josephus, the classics, the Cuneiform Inscriptions of Persia and the tablets of Babylonia all fail, Ptolemy fails also. These 82 years are years that never existed except in the constructive imagination of the Chronologer. They are years in which the sun never set, and on which the light never shone.

"Of course, if one could be quite sure of the exact date of an eclipse, like the Eclipse of Thales, and could identify it with an event like the Battle of Halys, such an eclipse would measure the lapse of time between that event and the present day, and also between that event and every other event connected with it by a chain of continuous, contemporary historical records.

"But the date of the Eclipse of Thales and the Battle of Halys is quite unknown to us. All that we know of it is what we are told in Herodotus, Book i, Chap. 74, where he says:--

"'War broke out between Cyaxares the Mede and Alyattes the Lydian, and continued for five years with various success. In the course of it the Medes gained many victories over the Lydians, and the Lydians also gained many victories over the Medes. A combat took place in the 6th year in the course of which, just as the battle was growing warm, day was in a sudden changed into night. This event had been foretold by Thales the Milesian, who forewarned the lonians of it, fixing for it the very year in which it actually took place.'

"The date of this eclipse as fixed by Volney was B.C. 625. Clinton made it B.C. 603. Ideler said no eclipse fulfilled the conditions except that of B.C. 610. Later still, Mr. Hind and Prof. Airy brought it down to B.C. 585. The Eclipse of Thales has been placed in 607 (Calvisius), 603 (Costard, Montuda and Kennedy), 601 (Ussher), 597 (Petavius, Marsham, Bouhier and Larcher), and 585 (Pliny, Scaliger, Newton, Ferguson, Vignoles, and Jackson). George Rawlmson concludes a paragraph on the subject by saying, 'It may be doubted whether astronomical science has yet attained to such exactness with respect to the line of solar eclipses as to justify the adoption of its results as the basis of a chronological system. All astronomical calculations are uncertain since they assume the uniformity of the moon's motion which is a very doubtful point, and since Professor Airy made his calculations for Mr. Bosanquet which brought the date of the Eclipse of Thales down to B.C. 585, certain irregularities in the moon's movements have been discovered.'

"In any case, since there are never less than 2 eclipses in any year, usually 4, and sometimes as many as 7, and since an eclipse repeats itself more or less completely every 18 years and a few days, and much more completely every 54 years and a month, there will always be an eclipse available within a reasonable number of years with which to identify any recorded eclipse, the date of which we desire to fix; apart from which, it is a perfect paradox to contemplate the fixing of the current of the history of the entire world by the motions of the moon, the very type and symbol of instability.

"The method of astronomical calculation is, therefore, by no means an infallible guide to Chronology, but even if it were an infallible guide, Ptolemy could make no use of it, for he had no recorded eclipses to work the method with, during the later Persian period, the only part of his Chronology which is in dispute.

"We have seen that the received Chronology and the received dating of the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, which identifies the Artaxerxes of Ezra 7 and Nehemiah with Artaxerxes Longimanus, land us in the absurdity of making the leading men of the period live to an impossible age.

"Ezra, 141 in the 20th year of Artaxerxes Longimanus.
"Nehemiah, 103 years older in the 32nd year of Artaxerxes Longimanus than when he returned to Jerusalem in the 1st year of Cyrus.
"Mordecai 123 in the 12th year of Xerxes."

As further proof that dates cannot be set by astronomy with any degree of accuracy and certainty, I wish to call attention to the fact that chronologers are at variance relative to many outstanding events of the past. They at times vary by several centuries in regard to the date of a certain happening. In view of these facts one cannot put confidence in the determination of chronology by astronomy.

The present system of Chronology--the B.C.E. and C.E. dates--is based upon computations which, in turn, often rest upon fragmentary evidence. For instance, the early years of the present dispensation are very uncertain. The chronology of those days is based upon bits of information gathered here and there, which have been pieced together by conjecture and hypotheses. Roman chronology has been worked out by the lists of the consuls and is supposed to be correct. After having done special research work on the foundations afforded by these lists in the British Museum, London, and the libraries and museums in Rome, I found that there is no authentic list that can be relied upon. Neither can any confidence be put in the chronology which is based upon the lists of the occupants of the Papal Throne. All historians of the period are in doubt. In fact, most of them in suggesting a date for a given event of those early days place a question mark after certain names.

The calendar is, therefore, resting upon conjectures and guesses at different places. By certain late compilers a scheme of years has been made out and has come down to us in the form of B.C.E. and C.E. systems. Some modern astronomers have accepted these schedules as correct without investigation and have placed certain events as having occurred in a given year of one of them. Thus they speak in terms of these current schemes without implying that they are correct.

From a purely mathematical point of view the astronomer can figure just when an eclipse was 2000 or 3000 years ago and where it was visible. There can be no doubt concerning its having occurred just as he figures. For example, he may make his calculation and discover that there was an eclipse of the sun exactly 3000 years ago which was visible from a belt that crossed the northwestern portion of the United States. If his calculation is correct we may be sure that there was such an eclipse. To be more explicit, let me say that an eclipse which took place exactly 3000 years ago did not occur in the year which is known as 1063 B.C.E., the present date of this writing being 1938 C.E. My reason for saying this is that we know positively 82 years were added to the length of the Persian period. Nevertheless, because of current usage we are compelled to speak in terms of the popular chronology. But no scientist who has taken the time to investigate the foundation of our current chronology will affirm that the years determined by pure calculation will fit into the popular chronology because it is incorrect. To state the case differently, let me say that the year which is called 1063 B.C.E. was 3082 years ago, if no other mistakes were made in the computation of the two systems. Should a different scheme be devised for the reckoning of time, the astronomers would speak in terms of the new calendar.

Knowing the contradictions and the guesses that have been made by both chronologers and certain astronomers, one can place no confidence in any calculations that might be made by astronomers to determine the date of a given historical event.

An examination of the data that underlie the current system of reckoning time will reveal the fact that it is not built upon the firm foundation of established facts but upon surmises, guesses, and hypotheses. The following quotations from Anstey will make this point clear.

"The Sedar Olam Rabbah, i.e., The Large Chronicle of the World, commonly called the Larger Chronicon, is a Jewish Talmudic Tract, containing the Chronology of the world as reckoned by the Jews. It treats of Scripture times, and is continued down to the reign of Hadrian (A.D 76-138). The author is said to have been Rabbi Jose ben Chaliptha, who flourished a little the beginning of the 2nd century after Christ, and was Master to Rabbi Judah Hakkodesh, who composed the Mishna. Others say it dates from A.D. 832, and that it was certainly written after the Babylonian Talmud as it contains many fables taken from thence.

"The Sedar Olam Zeutah, i.e., Small Chronicle of the World, commonly called the Lesser Chronicle, is said to have been written A.D. 1123. It is a short chronicle of the events of history from the beginning of the world to the year A.D. 522.

"Both contain the Jewish tradition respecting the duration of the Persian Empire. This tradition is 'that in the last year of Darius Hystaspes, the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi died, that thereon the spirit of prophecy ceased from among the Children of Israel, and that this was the obsignation or sealing up of vision and prophecy spoken of by the prophet Daniel (Dan. 9:24). The same tradition tells us that the Kingdom of the Persians ceased also the same year, for they will have it that this was the Darius whom Alexander the Great conquered, and that the whole continuance of the Persian Empire was only 52 years, which they reckon thus:--

"This last Darius, they say, was the Artaxerxes who sent Ezra and Nehemiah to Jerusalem to restore the state of the Jews, for they tell us that Artaxerxes among the Persians was the common name for their Kings, as that of Pharaoh was among the Egyptians.'

"Now we may say with Dr. Prideaux in his Historical Connection of the Old and New Testaments, published in 1858, from which the above extract is taken, that 'this shows how ill they have been acquainted with the affairs of the Persian Empire,' and that 'their countryman, Josephus, in the account which he gives of those times, seems to have been but very little better informed concerning them,' or, we may draw the contrary conclusion, that Josephus knew the history of his own country better than Ptolemy.

"How long did the Persian Empire last? We may ask the Persians themselves, and if we do they will tell us that they have no records of the period, these having been all swept away by the Greek and Mohammedan Invasions. But they have certain vague, floating, national traditions, cast into an epic poem by Firdusi, and from these we learn that the succession of the Persian Monarchs; was as follows: (1) Darius Hystaspes, (2) Artaxerxes Longimanus (3) Queen Homai, the mother of Darius Nothus, (4) Darius Nothus, the bastard son of Artaxerxes Longimanus, and (5) Darius, who was conquered by Alexander the Great. All the Kings between these two Dariuses they omit.

"Or again we may ask the Jews, and if we do they will tell us that the Persian Empire lasted only 52 years, from the first of Cyrus to the first of Alexander the Great. We may go to Ptolemy, and if we do he will determine the length of the period and make out a list of kings for us by means of astronomical calculations and conjectural identifications of recorded with calculated eclipses, and then we shall get a Persian Empire lasting 205 years. But if we take the account given in Nehemiah, and the years specified by the prophet Daniel, we shall find that the Persian Empire continued for a period of 123 years.

"The Jews shortened it to 52 years. 'Some of them,' says Sir Isaac Newton, took Herod for the Messiah, and were thence called Herodians. They seem to have grounded their opinion on the 70 weeks, which they reckoned from the first year of Cyrus. But afterwards, in applying the prophecy to Theudas and Judas of Galilee, and at length to Bar Cochab, they seem to have shortened the reign of the Kingdom of Persia.' This explains why the Jews underestimated the duration of the Persian Empire, and it shows that originally they reckoned about 123 years. "Now,

"If, then, the wise men from the East had heard of Daniel's prophecy, and had kept an accurate account of the years, and if the Jews of Palestine were also expecting the Messiah at the very time when He was born (B.C. 4) on the ground that it was then within 33 years of the 483 predicted in Daniel for His appearance, and therefore now time for Him to be born, this would indicate that they reckoned the time between the 1st year of Cyrus and the birth of Christ as a period of 450 years. And since the 327 years (B.C. 331 to B.C. 4) from Alexander the Great to the birth of Christ were in all probability accurately computed by the Greeks, for they began their reckoning by Olympiads within 60 years of Alexander's death, it leaves exactly these 123 years for the duration of the Persian Empire, and abridges the accepted Ptolemaic Chronology by 82 years for 205-123 = 82, which is the exact year expressed for these events in the Chronology of the Old Testament, as developed in these pages, for Cyrus' 1st year is shown to be the year AN. HOM. 3589, whence 3589 + 483 = 4071 (inclusive reckoning), for the Crucifixion, and as Christ was about 30 years of age when He began His ministry, and His ministry lasted three years, He was born AN. HOM. 4038, or exactly 450 years after the 1st year of Cyrus, Christ having been born four years before the commencement of the Christian Era. But 450 years before the actual date of the birth of Christ is B.C. 454. The true date of the 1st year of Cyrus is therefore B.C. 454, not B.C. 536, which makes the Chronology of this period 82 years too long.

"It may be objected that in the Battle of Marathon, which was fought B.C. 490, Darius Hystaspes was defeated by the Greeks, and that the Greek Chronology, which was reckoned by Olympiads from B.C. 776 onward, cannot be at fault to the extent of 82 years. But that is just the very point in dispute. The Greeks did not make a single calculation in Olympiads, nor had they any accurate chronological records till sixty years after the death of Alexander the Great. All that goes before that is guesswork, and computation by generations, and other contrivances, not the testimony of contemporary records.

"The Sedar Olam, therefore, may be called as a witness, and it is not to be ruled out of court by any objection raised by the Greeks, but it must be called as a witness only, not as arbitrator or Judge."

In another connection Anstey gives us the facts concerning the insecurity of the chronology which is based upon Greek and Roman history. He also calls our attention to the way in which the present era was begun. All of the facts lead one to the conclusion that one cannot depend upon the present scheme as it has been worked out and given to us. Mr. Anstey's summary of the situation is very enlightening.

"It is through the Greeks that we have received our knowledge of the history of the great Empires and civilizations of the East. Even Sanchoniathon and Berosus and Manetho, have all come to us through the Greeks. It was the Greeks who created the framework of the Chronology of the civilized ages of the past, and fitted into it all the facts of history, which have reached us through them. Apart from the Bible, the vague floating national traditions of the Persians and the later Jews, and the direct results of modern exploration, all our chronological knowledge reaches us through Greek spectacles. Here as everywhere else it is 'thy sons 0 Zion against thy sons, 0 Greece' (Zech. 9:13). It is Nehemiah and Daniel against Ptolemy and Eratosthenes. It is Hebraic Chronology against Hellenic Chronology. And here the Greek has stolen a march upon the Hebrew, for he has stolen his Old Testament and forced his own Greek Chronology into the Hebrew record, Hellenizing the ages of the Hebrew Patriarchs in the Greek LXX.

"Are we then to accept the testimony of the Greek as correcting or antiquating the testimony of the Hebrew? By no means. Let the Greek be heard as a witness, but let him not presume to pronounce sentence as a Judge. Clinton's Fasti Hellenici is perhaps the most valuable treatise on Chronology ever produced. But it is not infallible. Clinton's standard is Ptolemy's Canon; Sayce's standard is the Monuments. But neither of these sources is competent to correct the Hebrew Old Testament, which must be placed in the witness-box alongside of them, not in the dock, to be sentenced by them.

"To begin at the beginning, the point of departure for Greek Chronology, the 1st Olympiad, B.C. 776, upon which everything else depends, rests upon no firmer foundation than that of tradition and computation by conjecture.

"The opening sentence of Clinton's Tables reveals the basis upon which he builds. He says: 'The first Olympiad is placed by Censorinus in the 1014th year before the Consulship of Ulpius and Pontianus, A.D. 238 = B.C. 776. Solinus attests that the 207th Olympiad fell within the Consulship of Gallus and Verannius. These were Consuls A.D. 49, and if the 207th Games were celebrated in July, A.D. 49, 206 Olympiads, or 824 years had elapsed, and the first games were celebrated in July, 776.'

"But Censorinus wrote his De Die Natali, A.D. 238, and Solinus also belongs to the 3rd Century A.D. They are not, therefore, contemporary witnesses, and we do not know how far their computations were derived from hypothesis and conjecture, or how far they rest upon a basis of objective fact. Nevertheless, this point has been made the first link in the chain of the centuries, a chain flung out to float in the air, or attached, not to the solid staple of fixed fact, but only to the rotten ring of computation and conjecture. The Canon of Ptolemy rests upon this calculation. Eusebius (A.D. 264-349) adopted it, and set the example of making Scripture dates fit into the years of the Greek Era. Eusebius is based upon Manetho (3rd Century B.C.), Berosus (3rd Century B.C.), Abydenus (2nd Century B.C.), Polyhister (1st Century B.C.), Josephus (A.D. 37-103), Cephalion (1st Century A.D.), Africanus (3rd Century B.C.), and other sources now lost. Eusebius' Chronology was contained in his 'Chronicon.' This was translated by Jerome, and has been followed by all subsequent writers down to the present day.

"The one infallible connecting link between sacred and profane Chronology is given in Jeremiah 25:1. 'The fourth year of Jehoiakim, which was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar.' If the events of history had been numbered forward from this point to the birth of Christ, or back from Christ to it, we should have had a perfectly complete and satisfactory Chronology. But they were not. The distance between the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar and the birth of Christ was not known. It has been fixed by conjecture, with the assistance of Ptolemy. Clinton fixes it at B.C. 606, Sayce at B.C. 604, and from this date, thus fixed, Chronologers reckon back to Adam and on to Christ. The distance between the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar and the birth of Christ has not been measured by the annals or chronicles of any well-attested dated events. It was originally fixed by Ptolemy, by means of computation and conjecture, and recorded events have been fitted into the interval by computing Chronologers as far as the fictitious framework would allow.

"The opening sentence of Sir Isaac Newton's Introduction to his Short Chronicle from the first memory of things in Europe to the Conquest of Persia by Alexander the Great shows how entirely fluid and indeterminate were those first years of Grecian history.

"The Greek Antiquities says Newton, 'are full of poetic fictions, because the Greeks wrote nothing in prose before the conquest of Asia by Cyrus the Persian.'

"The uncertainty as to the epoch of the foundation of Rome and the Era which dates from that event, is just as great as the uncertainty as to the beginnings of the history of Greece. The following is a list of the dates that have been sanctioned by various writers:--