The Babylonians, according to Berossus, supposed that there were ten antediluvian kings, who they declared had reigned for the portentous period of 432,000 years: 432,000 years, however, it has been ingeniously pointed out by Oppert (Gott. Gel. Nachrichten, 1877, p. 205 ff.) = 86,400lustra, while 1656 years (the Heb. date of the Flood) = 86,400weeks(1656 = 72 × 23; and 23 years being = 8395 days + 5 intercalary days = 8400 days = 1200 weeks); and hence the inference has been drawn that the two periods have in some way been developed from a common basis, the Hebrews taking as their unit a week, where the Babylonians took alustrumof 5 years.(3)From the Call of Abraham to the Exodus.From the Call of Abraham to the birth of Isaac(Abraham being then aged 100, Gen. xxi. 5).25yearsAge of Isaac at the birth of Esau and Jacob (Gen. xxv. 26)60”Age of Jacob when he went down into Egypt (Gen. xlvii. 9)130”——The period of the Patriarchs’ sojourn in Canaan was thus215”But the period of the Israelites’ sojourn in Egypt,according to Ex. xii. 40, 41, was430”We thus get—From the Call of Abraham to the Exodus (Heb. text) 215 + 430 =645yearsFrom the Flood to the Call of Abraham (Heb. text)365”From the Creation of Man to the Flood (Heb. text)1656”——From the Creation of Man to the Exodus (Heb. text)2666”
The Babylonians, according to Berossus, supposed that there were ten antediluvian kings, who they declared had reigned for the portentous period of 432,000 years: 432,000 years, however, it has been ingeniously pointed out by Oppert (Gott. Gel. Nachrichten, 1877, p. 205 ff.) = 86,400lustra, while 1656 years (the Heb. date of the Flood) = 86,400weeks(1656 = 72 × 23; and 23 years being = 8395 days + 5 intercalary days = 8400 days = 1200 weeks); and hence the inference has been drawn that the two periods have in some way been developed from a common basis, the Hebrews taking as their unit a week, where the Babylonians took alustrumof 5 years.
(3)From the Call of Abraham to the Exodus.
On these figures the following remarks may be made:—(i.) In Genesis the chronology of the Priestly Narrative (“P”) is not consistent with the chronology of the other parts of the book (“JE”). Three or four illustrations will suffice: (a) The author of Gen. xii. 10-20 evidently pictures Sarai as a comparatively young woman, yet according to P (xii. 4, xvii. 17) she was 65 years old. (b) In Gen. xxi. 15 it is clearly implied that Ishmael has beencarriedby his mother, yet according to xvi. 16, xxi. 5, 8, he must have been at least 15 years old. (c) In Gen. xxvii. Isaac is to all appearance on his death-bed (cf. ver. 2), yet according to P (xxv. 26, xxvi. 34, xxxv. 28) he survived foreightyyears, dying at the age of 180. Ussher and others, arguing back from the dates in xlvii. 9, xlv. 6, xli. 46, xxxi. 41, infer that Jacob’s flight to Haran took place in his 77th year. This reduces the 80 years to 43 years, though that is scarcely less incredible. It involves, moreover, the incongruity of supposing thatthirty-sevenyears elapsed between Esau’s marrying his Hittite wives (xxvi. 34) and Rebekah’s expressing her apprehensions (xxvii. 46) lest Jacob, then aged seventy-seven, should follow his brother’s example. (d) In Gen. xliv. 20 Benjamin is described as a “little one”; in P, almost immediately afterwards (xlvi. 21), he appears as the father of ten sons; for a similar anomaly in xlvi. 12, see theOxford Hexateuch, i. p. 25n. (ii.) The ages to which the various patriarchs lived (Abraham, 175; Isaac, 180; Jacob, 147), though not so extravagant as those of the antediluvian patriarchs, or (with one exception) as those of the patriarchs between Noah and Abraham, are much greater than is at all probable in view of the structure and constitution of the human body. (iii.) The plain intention of Ex. xii 40, 41 is to describe the Israelites as having dwelt in Egypt for 430 years, which is also in substantial agreement with the earlier passage, Gen. xv. 13 (“shall sojourn in a land that is not theirs, ... and they shall afflict them 400 years”). It does not, however, accord with other passages, which assign only four generations from Jacob’s children to Moses (Ex. vi. 16-20; Num. xxvi. 5-9; cf. Gen. xv. 16), or five to Joshua (Josh. vii. 1); and for this reason, no doubt, the Sam. and LXX. read in Ex. xii. 40, “The sojourning of the children of Israel in the land of Egypt,and in the land of Canaan, was 430 years,” reducing the period of the sojourn in Egypt to half of that stated in the Hebrew text, viz. 215 years. This computation attained currency among the later Jews (Josephus and others; cf. the “400 years” of Gal. iii. 17). The forced and unnatural rendering of Ex. xii. 40 in the A.V. (contrast R.V.), which was followed by Ussher, is intended for the purpose of making it possible. From the facts that have been here briefly noted it must be evident how precarious and, in parts, how impossible the Biblical chronology of this period is. (iv.) It has been observed as remarkable that 2666, the number of years (in the Hebrew text) from the Creation of Man to the Exodus, is, in round numbers, just two-thirds of 4000; and the fact has suggested the inference that the figure was reached by artificial computation.
The Date of the Exodus.—Is it possible to determine this, even approximately, upon the basis of external data? (i.) The correspondence between the Egyptian governors established in different parts of Palestine and the Egyptian kings Amen-hôtep (Amenophis) III. and IV. of the 18th dynasty, which was discovered in 1887 at Tel el-Amarna, makes it evident that Palestine could not yet have been in the occupation of the Israelites. It was still an Egyptian province, and the Babylonian language, in which the correspondence is written, shows that the country must have been for a considerable time past, before it came into the possession of Egypt, under Babylonianinfluence. Now one of the kings, who corresponds with Amen-hotepIV., is Burnaburiash (Burna-buryas), king of Babylon, and Egyptologists and Assyriologists are agreed that the date of these monarchs wasc.1400B.C.The conquest of Canaan, consequently, could not have taken place till after 1400B.C.(ii.) It is stated in Ex. i. 11 that the Israelites built in Egypt for the Pharaoh two store-cities, Pithom and Rameses. The excavations of M. Naville have, however, shown that Ramses II. of the 19th dynasty was the builder of Pithom; and though the other city has not at present been certainly identified, its name is sufficient to show that he was its builder likewise. Hence the Pharaoh of the Exodus is commonly supposed to have been Ramses (Rameses) II.’s successor, Merenptah (Mineptah). Egyptian chronology is unfortunately imperfect; but Professor Petrie, who has paid particular attention to the subject, and who assigns the reign of Amen-hotep IV. to 1383-1365B.C., assigns Ramses II. to 1300-1234B.C.31In Merenptah’s fifth year the Delta was invaded by a formidable body of Libyans and other foes;32and it has been conjectured that the Israelites took the opportunity of escaping during the unsettlement that was thus occasioned.
Alternative dates for Ramses II.: Maspero,The Struggle of the Nations(1897), p. 449,c.1320-1255; Breasted (1906), 1292-1225; Meyer (1909), 1310-1244. Attempts have been made to identify the Khabiri, who are mentioned often in the Tel el-Amarna letters as foes, threatening to invade Palestine and bring the Egyptian supremacy over it to an end, with the Hebrews. The Exodus, it has been pointed out, might then be placed under Amen-hotep II. (1448-1420B.C., Breasted; 1449-1423, Petrie), the successor of Thothmes, and more time would be allowed for the events between the Exodus and the time of David (c.1000), which, if the date given above be correct, have been thought to be unduly compressed (see Orr in theExpositor, March 1897, p. 161 ff.); but there are difficulties attaching to this view, and it has not been adopted generally by scholars. There may be some ultimate connexion between the Khabiri and the Hebrews; but the Khabiri of the Tel el-Amarna letters cannot be the Hebrews who invaded Canaan under Joshua.
Alternative dates for Ramses II.: Maspero,The Struggle of the Nations(1897), p. 449,c.1320-1255; Breasted (1906), 1292-1225; Meyer (1909), 1310-1244. Attempts have been made to identify the Khabiri, who are mentioned often in the Tel el-Amarna letters as foes, threatening to invade Palestine and bring the Egyptian supremacy over it to an end, with the Hebrews. The Exodus, it has been pointed out, might then be placed under Amen-hotep II. (1448-1420B.C., Breasted; 1449-1423, Petrie), the successor of Thothmes, and more time would be allowed for the events between the Exodus and the time of David (c.1000), which, if the date given above be correct, have been thought to be unduly compressed (see Orr in theExpositor, March 1897, p. 161 ff.); but there are difficulties attaching to this view, and it has not been adopted generally by scholars. There may be some ultimate connexion between the Khabiri and the Hebrews; but the Khabiri of the Tel el-Amarna letters cannot be the Hebrews who invaded Canaan under Joshua.
The mention of Israel on the stele of Merenptah, discovered by Petrie in 1896 (“Israel [Ysirael] is desolated; its seed [orfruit] is not”), is too vague and indefinite in its terms to throw any light on the question of the Exodus. The context speaks of places in or near Canaan; and it is possible that the reference is to Israelite clans who either had not gone down into Egypt at all, or had already found their way back to Palestine. See Hogarth’sAuthority and Archaeology, pp. 62-65.
2.From the Exodus to the Foundation of the Temple(in the fourth year of Solomon, 1 Kings vi. 1).—In the chronological note, 1 Kings vi. 1, this period is stated to have consisted of 480 (LXX. 440) years. Is this figure correct? If the years of the several periods of oppression and independence mentioned in the Book of Judges (Judges iii. 8, 11, 14, 30, iv. 3, v. 31, vi. 1, viii. 28, ix. 22, x. 2, 3, 8, xii. 7, 9, 11, 14, xiii. 1, xv. 20, xvi. 31) be added up, they will be found to amount to 410 years; to these must be added further, in order to gain the entire period from the Exodus to the foundation of the Temple, the 40 years in the wilderness, x years under Joshua and the elders (Judges ii. 7), the 40 (LXX. 20) years’ judgeship of Eli (1 Sam. iv. 18), the 20 or more years of Samuel (1 Sam. vii. 2, 15), the y years of Saul (the two years of 1 Sam. xiii. 1 [R.V.] seem too few), the 40 years of David (1 Kings ii. 11), and the first four years of Solomon,i.e.144 + x + y years, in all 554 years, + two unknown periods denoted by x and y—in any case considerably more than the 480 years of 1 Kings vi. 1. This period might no doubt be reduced to 480 years by the supposition, in itself not improbable, that some of the judges were local and contemporaneous; the suggestion has also been made that, as is usual in Oriental chronologies, the years of foreign domination were not counted, the beginning of each judge’s rule being reckoned, not from the victory which brought him into power, but from the death of his predecessor; we should in this case obtain for the period from the Exodus to the foundation of the Temple 440 + x + y years,33which if 30 years be assigned conjecturally to Joshua and the elders, and 10 years to Saul, would amount exactly to 480 years. The terms used, however (“and the landhad restforty years,” iii. 11, similarly, iii. 30, v. 31, viii. 28), seem hardly to admit of the latter supposition; and even if they did, it would still be scarcely possible to maintain the correctness of the 480 years: it is difficult to harmonize with what, as we have seen, appears to be the most probable date of the Exodus; it is, moreover, open itself to the suspicion of having been formed artificially, upon the assumption that the period in question consisted of twelve generations,34of 40 years each. In the years assigned to the different judges, also, the frequency of the number 40 (which certainly appears to have been regarded by the Hebrews as a round number) is suspicious. On the whole no certain chronology of this period is at present attainable.35
3.From the Fourth Year of Solomon to the Captivity of Judah.—During this period the dates are both more abundant, and also, approximately, far more nearly correct, than in any of the earlier periods; nevertheless in details there is still much uncertainty and difficulty. The Books of Kings are a compilation made at about the beginning of the Exile, and one object of the compiler was to give a consecutive and complete chronology of the period embraced in his work. With this purpose in view, he not only notes carefully the length of the reign of each king in both kingdoms, but also (as long as the northern kingdom existed) brings the history of the two kingdoms into relation with one another by equating the commencement of each reign in either kingdom with the year of the reign of the contemporary king in the other kingdom.
The following are examples of the standing formulae used by the compiler for the purpose:—“In the twentieth year of Jeroboam king of Israel began Asa to reign over Judah. And forty and one years reigned he in Jerusalem” (1 Kings xv. 9, 10). “In the third year of Asa king of Judah began Baasha the son of Ahijah to reign over all Israel in Tirzah (and reigned) twenty and four years” (ibid.ver. 33).
The following are examples of the standing formulae used by the compiler for the purpose:—“In the twentieth year of Jeroboam king of Israel began Asa to reign over Judah. And forty and one years reigned he in Jerusalem” (1 Kings xv. 9, 10). “In the third year of Asa king of Judah began Baasha the son of Ahijah to reign over all Israel in Tirzah (and reigned) twenty and four years” (ibid.ver. 33).
In these chronological notices the lengths of the reigns were derived, there is every reason to suppose, either from tradition or from the state annals—the “book of the chronicles of Israel” (or “Judah”), so constantly referred to by the compiler as his authority (e.g.1 Kings xv. 23, 31, xvi. 5); but the “synchronisms”—i.e.the corresponding dates in the contemporary reigns in the other kingdom were derived, it is practically certain, by computation from the lengths of the successive reigns. Now in some cases, perhaps, in the lengths of the reigns themselves, in other cases in the computations based upon them, errors have crept in, which have vitiated more or less the entire chronology of the period. The existence of these errors can be demonstrated in two ways: (1) The chronology of the two kingdoms is not consistent with itself; (2) the dates of various events in the history, which are mentioned also in the Assyrian inscriptions, are in serious disagreement with the dates as fixed by the contemporary Assyrian chronology.
(1) That the chronology of the two kingdoms is inconsistent with itself is readily shown. After the division of the kingdom the first year of Jeroboam in Israel coincides, of course, with the first year of Rehoboam in Judah; and after the death of Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah in battle with Jehu (2 Kings ix. 24, 27), the first year of Jehu in Israel coincides similarly with the first year of Athaliah in Judah; there are thus in the history of the two kingdoms two fixed and certain synchronisms. Now, if the regnal years of the kings of Israel from Jeroboam to Jehoram be added together, they will be found to amount to 98, while if those of the kings of Judah for the same period (viz. from Rehoboam to Ahaziah) be added together, they amount only to 95. This discrepancy, if it stood alone, would not, however, be serious. But when we proceed to add up similarly the regnal years in the two kingdoms from the division after Solomon’s death to the fall of Samaria in the sixth year of Hezekiah (2 Kings xviii. 10), we find in the southern kingdom 260 years, and in the northern kingdom only 241 years 7 months. This is a formidable discrepancy. Ussher, in order to remove it, has recourse to the doubtful expedient of artificially lengthening the northern series of years, by assuming (without any authority in the text) an “interregnum of 11 years” after the death of Jeroboam II., and an “anarchy for some years” between Pekah and Hoshea (see the margin of A.V. at 2 Kings xiv. 29; xv. 8, 29).
Chronological Table.
The dates printed in heavy type are certain, at least within a unit.
Chronologyof Ussher.Probable RealDates.Biblical Events.Events in Contemporary History.Babylonia.Assyria.Egypt.384004[4157]36Indeterminable, butmuch before 7000B.C.Creation of Man7-6000.37Temple of Belat Nippur founded.4777. Menes, the first king of theFirst Egyptian Dynastyc.4000.37lugal-zaggisi,king of Uruk (Erech, Gen.x. 10)3998-3721.Fourth Dynasty.3969-3908. Cheops. The GreatPyramid The Great Pyramid3800.39Sargon of Agade, whocarries his arms as faras the Mediterranean Sea.2348[250140]The Delugec.2800.41Ur-bau and Dungi,kings of Uru (Ur, Gen. xi.28, 31)c.2300. Ushpia, priest ofAshur, builder of templein the city of Ashur.1996-1821[2211-203640]c.2100 (if, as isprobable, the Amraphelof Gen. xiv. 1 isKhammurabi.)Abrahamc.B.C.2130-2088.42Khammurabiunifies Babylonia and constructsin it many great works (see art.Babylonia.)c.2225. Ilu-shuma, firstking of Assyria at present(1909) known.432098-1587. Rule of the Hyksos.1587-1328.Eighteenth Dynasty.1503-1449. Thothmes (Tethmosis)III. (leads victorious expeditionsinto Asia.)c.1400. Burnaburiash. Tel el-Amarna correspondence.1414-1483. Amen-hōtep(Amenophis) III.1383-1365. Amen-hōtep IV.1328-1202.Nineteenth Dynastyc.1300. Shalmaneser I.(builder of Calah,Gen. x. 11.)1300-1234. Ramses II.1234-1214. Merenptab II.1491c. 1230The Exodus.· ·· ·1099-1058c.1025-101044Saul (2)451058-1017c.1010-970David (40)1017-977c.970-933Solomon (40)Judah.Israel.952-749 (al.945-745).Twenty-second Dynasty977959956933. Rehoboam (17)916. Abijah (3)913. Asa (41)933. Jeroboam I. (22)· ·· ·952-93046(Breasted 945-924). Sheshonq (Shishak).Shishak invades Judah inthe fifth year of Rehoboam(1 Ki. xiv. 25 f.)956954· ·· ·912. Nadab (2)911. Baasha (24)930929929918· ·· ·· ·· ·888. Elah (2)887. Zimri (7 days)887. Omri (12)876. Ahab (22)885-860. Asshur-nazir-abal860-825. Shalmaneser II.914873. Jehoshaphat (25)898896· ·· ·854.Ahabmentioned at thebattle of Karkar892885849. Jehoram (8)842. Ahaziah (1)884842. Athalia (6)842. Jehu (28)842.Jehupays tributeto Shalmaneser II.878836. Jehoash (40)856· ·814. Jehoahaz (17)· ·841· ·798. Jehoash (16)825-812. Shamshi-Adad(Hadad)839797. Amaziah (29)· ·812-783. Adad-Nirari IV.823· ·783. Jeroboam II. (41)810779. Uzziah(52)c.750. Jotham (16) asregent. (2 Ki. xv. 5)· ·747-733. Nabonassar745-727. Tiglath-Pileser IV.773772772· ·· ·· ·743. Zecharia (6 mo.)743. Shallum (1 mo.)743. Menahem (10)758740. Jotham, sole ruler761759· ·· ·738. Pekabiah(2)737. Pekah(20)· ·738.Menahempays tributeto Tiglath-pileser IV.(cf. 2 Ki. xv. 19)742736.47Ahaz (16)730733. (or732) Hoshea (9)733(or732). AssassinationofPekah, and successionofHosheamentioned byTiglath-pileser III.732. Capture of Damascusby Tiglath-pileser IV.(2 Ki. xvi. 9; cf. Is. viii.4, xvii. 1)726728.47Hezeiah (29)729-724. Tiglath-pileser,under the name ofPulu(cf. 2 Ki. xv. 19),king of Babylon.727-722. Shalmaneser IV.· ·722-705. Sargon.721722. Fall of Samaria andend of northernkingdom.722. Capture of Samariain Sargon's accession-year.Biblical Events.721-710. The Chaldaean prince,Merodach-baladan, king ofBabylon (cf. 2 Kings xx. 12 =Is. xxxix. 1)715-663.Twenty-fifth(Ethiopian)Dynasty.715.48Sabako (Shabaka)711. Siege and captureof Ashdod. (cf. Is. xx. 1)705-681. Sennacherib707.48Shabataka701. Campaign againstPhoenicia, Philistia andJudah (2 Kings xviii.13-xix. 35)698698. Manasseh (55)693.48Taharqa (Tirhakah,Is. xxxvii. 9)681-668. Esarhaddon670. Esarhaddon conquersEgypt668-626Asshur-banipal(Assur-bani-pal)663. Asshur-banipal invadesEgypt, and sacks Thebes(Nah. iii. 8-10)664-525. Twenty-sixth Dynasty.664. Psammetichus I.643641629641. Amon (2)639. Josiah (31)626.Call of the prophet Jeremiahin Josiah's13th year. (Jer. i. 2, xxv. 3)Chaldaean Dynasty625. Nabopolassar624621.Discovery of the Book of the Law(Deuteronomy) in Josiah's 18th year (2Kings xxiii. 3 ff.)610608. Jehoahaz (3 mo.)· ·· ·610. Necho608.Battle of Megiddo,and death of Josiah.(2 Kings xxiii. 29)610608. Jehoiakim (11)607. Destruction of Ninevehby the Medes, andend of the empire ofAssyria.605. Defeat of Egyptiansby Nebuchadrezzar (as hisfather's general) atCarchemish (Jer. xlvi. 2)604. Nebuchadrezzar599597. Jehoiachin (3 mo.)Firstdeportationof captives (including Jehoiachin) toBabylonia, in the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar(2 Kings xxiv. 12-16)599597. Zedekiah (11)594. Psammetichus II. (Psammis)589. Apries (Hophra, Jer. xliv. 30)588586. Destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldaeansin the 19th year of 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar(2 Kings xxv. 8).Seconddeportationof captives to Babylonia (2 Kingsxxv. 4-21)568. Nebuchadrezzar invadesEgypt (cf. Jer. xliii.8-13)570. Amasis II. (jointlywith Apries)564. Amasis alone562561. Jehoiachin released from prison byEvil-merodach in the 37th year of hiscaptivity (2 Kings xxv. 27-30)561. Amēl-marduk (Evil-merodach, 2 Ki. xxv. 27)559. Nergal-sharuzur (Neriglissar)555. (9 months) Labashi-marduk(Laboriso-archod)555. Nabu-na'id (Nabon-nēdus,Nabonidus)539. Capture of Babylon by Cyrus.Judah a province of the Persian EmpirePersian Kings536538. Edict of Cyrus, permitting the Jews toreturn to Palestine. Many return underthe leadership of Zerubbabel (Ezra i.-ii.)538. Cyrus529. Cambyses526. Psammetichus III.525. Conquest of Egyptby Cambyses522. (7 mo.) Gaumata(Pseudo-Smerdis)522. Darius Hystaspis515516. Completion of the second Temple inthe 6th year of Darius (Ezra vi. 15)490.Battle of Marathon485. Xerxes480.Battles of Thermopylaeand Salamis465. Artaxerxes457458. Return of exiles with Ezra, in the 7thyear of Artaxerxes (Ezra vii. 7)445445. Nehemiah's first visit to Jerusalem(Neh. i. 1, ii. 1)434432. Nehemiah's second visit to Jerusalem(Neh. xiii. 6)423. Darius II. (Nothus)404. Artaxerxes II. (Mnemon)359. Artaxerxes III. (Ochus)c.350. Many Jews carried away captive toHyrcania and Babylonia, probably onaccount of a revolt against the Persians338. Arses336. Darius III. (Codomannus)333. Persian Empire overthrownby Alexander the Great
Palestine now becomes a province, first of the empire of Alexander, and afterwards of that of one or other of Alexander’s successors.332. The Jews submit to Alexander the Great.323. Death of Alexander in Babylon.322. Alexander’s general, Ptolemy Lagi, becomes Satrap of Egypt.320. Ptolemy Lagi gains possession of Palestine, which, with short interruptions, continues in the hands of the Ptolemies till 198.312. Beginning of the era of the Seleucidae (reckoned from the time when Seleucus Nicator, Alexander’s former heavy cavalry officer, finally established himself in the satrapy of Babylonia. He founded Antioch as his capital, 300B.C.).305. Ptolemy Lagi assumes the title of king.198. Antiochus the Great, king of Syria (223-187), defeats Ptolemy Epiphanes at Panias (Baniyas, near the sources of the Jordan), and obtains possession of Palestine.175-164. Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria (Dan. xi. 21-45).168. Antiochus’s attempt to suppress the religion of the Jews (1 Macc. i. 41-63; cf. Dan. vii. 8, 21, 24-26, viii. 9-14, xii. 10-12). Public worship suspended in the Temple for three years.167. Rise of the Maccabees (1 Macc. ii.).166-165. Victories of Judas Maccabaeus over the generals of Antiochus (1 Macc. iii.-iv.).165. Re-dedication of the Temple on 25th Chisleu (December), 1 Macc. iv. 52-61.160. Death of Judas Maccabaeus (1 Macc. ix. 1-22).160-142. Jonathan, younger brother of Judas, leader of the loyal Jews (1 Macc. ix. 23-xii. 53).142-135. Simon, elder brother of Judas (1 Macc, xiii.-xvi.).135-105. John Hyrcanus, son of Simon.105-104. Aristobulus I. (son of Hyrcanus), king.104-78. Alexander Jannaeus (brother of Aristobulus), king.78-69. Salome (Alexandra), widow of Alexander Jannaeus.69. Aristobulus II. (son of Alexandra).65. Capture of Jerusalem by Pompey. Palestine becomes a part of the Roman province of Syria.
Palestine now becomes a province, first of the empire of Alexander, and afterwards of that of one or other of Alexander’s successors.
332. The Jews submit to Alexander the Great.323. Death of Alexander in Babylon.322. Alexander’s general, Ptolemy Lagi, becomes Satrap of Egypt.320. Ptolemy Lagi gains possession of Palestine, which, with short interruptions, continues in the hands of the Ptolemies till 198.312. Beginning of the era of the Seleucidae (reckoned from the time when Seleucus Nicator, Alexander’s former heavy cavalry officer, finally established himself in the satrapy of Babylonia. He founded Antioch as his capital, 300B.C.).305. Ptolemy Lagi assumes the title of king.198. Antiochus the Great, king of Syria (223-187), defeats Ptolemy Epiphanes at Panias (Baniyas, near the sources of the Jordan), and obtains possession of Palestine.175-164. Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria (Dan. xi. 21-45).168. Antiochus’s attempt to suppress the religion of the Jews (1 Macc. i. 41-63; cf. Dan. vii. 8, 21, 24-26, viii. 9-14, xii. 10-12). Public worship suspended in the Temple for three years.167. Rise of the Maccabees (1 Macc. ii.).166-165. Victories of Judas Maccabaeus over the generals of Antiochus (1 Macc. iii.-iv.).165. Re-dedication of the Temple on 25th Chisleu (December), 1 Macc. iv. 52-61.160. Death of Judas Maccabaeus (1 Macc. ix. 1-22).160-142. Jonathan, younger brother of Judas, leader of the loyal Jews (1 Macc. ix. 23-xii. 53).142-135. Simon, elder brother of Judas (1 Macc, xiii.-xvi.).135-105. John Hyrcanus, son of Simon.105-104. Aristobulus I. (son of Hyrcanus), king.104-78. Alexander Jannaeus (brother of Aristobulus), king.78-69. Salome (Alexandra), widow of Alexander Jannaeus.69. Aristobulus II. (son of Alexandra).65. Capture of Jerusalem by Pompey. Palestine becomes a part of the Roman province of Syria.
332. The Jews submit to Alexander the Great.
323. Death of Alexander in Babylon.
322. Alexander’s general, Ptolemy Lagi, becomes Satrap of Egypt.
320. Ptolemy Lagi gains possession of Palestine, which, with short interruptions, continues in the hands of the Ptolemies till 198.
312. Beginning of the era of the Seleucidae (reckoned from the time when Seleucus Nicator, Alexander’s former heavy cavalry officer, finally established himself in the satrapy of Babylonia. He founded Antioch as his capital, 300B.C.).
305. Ptolemy Lagi assumes the title of king.
198. Antiochus the Great, king of Syria (223-187), defeats Ptolemy Epiphanes at Panias (Baniyas, near the sources of the Jordan), and obtains possession of Palestine.
175-164. Antiochus Epiphanes, king of Syria (Dan. xi. 21-45).
168. Antiochus’s attempt to suppress the religion of the Jews (1 Macc. i. 41-63; cf. Dan. vii. 8, 21, 24-26, viii. 9-14, xii. 10-12). Public worship suspended in the Temple for three years.
167. Rise of the Maccabees (1 Macc. ii.).
166-165. Victories of Judas Maccabaeus over the generals of Antiochus (1 Macc. iii.-iv.).
165. Re-dedication of the Temple on 25th Chisleu (December), 1 Macc. iv. 52-61.
160. Death of Judas Maccabaeus (1 Macc. ix. 1-22).
160-142. Jonathan, younger brother of Judas, leader of the loyal Jews (1 Macc. ix. 23-xii. 53).
142-135. Simon, elder brother of Judas (1 Macc, xiii.-xvi.).
135-105. John Hyrcanus, son of Simon.
105-104. Aristobulus I. (son of Hyrcanus), king.
104-78. Alexander Jannaeus (brother of Aristobulus), king.
78-69. Salome (Alexandra), widow of Alexander Jannaeus.
69. Aristobulus II. (son of Alexandra).
65. Capture of Jerusalem by Pompey. Palestine becomes a part of the Roman province of Syria.
(2) As we now know, the methods of chronological computation adopted by the Assyrians were particularly exact. Every year a special officer was appointed, who held office for that year, and gave his name to the year; and “canons,” or lists, of these officers have been discovered, extending from 893 to 666B.C.49The accuracy of these canons can in many cases be checked by the full annals which we now possess of the reigns of many of the kings—as of Asshur-nazir-abal or Assur-nasir-pal (885-860B.C.), Shalmaneser II. (860-825), Tiglath-pileser IV. (745-727), Sargon (722-705), Sennacherib (704-781), Esarhaddon (681-668), and Asshurbanipal or Assur-bani-pal (668-626). Thus from 893B.C.the Assyrian chronology is certain and precise. Reducing now both the Assyrian and Biblical dates to a common standard,50and adopting for the latter the computations of Ussher, we obtain the following singular series of discrepancies:—
Dates accordingto Ussher’sChronology.B.C.Dates accordingto AssyrianInscription.B.C.Reign of Ahab918-897Ahab mentioned at the battle of Karkar· ·854Reign of Jehu884-856Jehu pays tribute to Shalmancser II.· ·842Reign of Menahem772-761Menahem mentioned by Tiglath-pileser IV.738Reign of Pekah759-739Reign of Hoshea730-721Assassination of Pekah and successionof Hoshea, mentioned by Tiglath-pileser IV.· ·733 (or 732)51Capture of Samaria by Sargon in Hezekiah’ssixth year (2 Kings xviii. 10)721722Invasion of Judah by Sennacherib in Hezekiah’sfourteenth year (ibid.ver. 13)713701
Manifestly all the Biblical dates earlier than 733-732B.C.are too high, and must be considerably reduced: the two events, also, in Hezekiah’s reign—the fall of Samaria and the invasion of Sennacherib—which the compiler of the book of Kings treats as separated by an interval ofeightyears, were separated in reality by an interval oftwenty-oneyears.52
Much has been written on the chronology of the kings and many endeavours have been made to readjust the Biblical figures so as to bring them into consistency with themselves and at the same time into conformity with the Assyrian dates. But, though the fact of there being errors in the Biblical figures is patent, it is not equally clear at what points the error lies, or how the available years ought to be redistributed between the various reigns. It is in any case evident that the accession of Jehu and Athaliah must be brought down from 884 to 842B.C.; and this will involve, naturally, a corresponding reduction of the dates of the previous kings of both kingdoms, and of course, at the same time, of those of Solomon, David and Saul. The difficulty is, however, greatest in the 8th century. Here, in Judah, from the accession of Athaliah to the accession of Ahaz, tradition gives 143 years, whereas, in fact, there were but 106 years (842-736); and in Israel, from the death of Menahem to the fall of Samaria, it gives 31 years, whereas from 738 (assuming that Menahem died in that year) to 722 there are actually only 16 years. The years assigned by tradition to the reigns in both kingdoms in the middle part of the 8th centuryB.C.have thus to be materially reduced. But in the following period, from the fall of Samaria in 722 to the capture of Jerusalem by the Chaldaeans in 586, the Biblical dates, so far as we can judge, are substantially correct. (See further the table above.)
4.From the Destruction of Jerusalem in 586 to the close of the Old Testament History.—Here, though it is true that there are events in the Biblical history which are not fully or unambiguously dated, there is otherwise no difficulty. The lengths of the reigns of Nebuchadrezzar and his successors on the throne of Babylon, and also, after the conquest of Babylon, of Cyrus and the following Persian kings, are known from the “Canon of Ptolemy,” referred to above, the particulars in which, for the earlier part of this period, are also confirmed by the testimony of the monuments.
See, for further information on the subject, the articleChronology, and the same heading in theEncyclopedia Biblica, cols. 773-799, with the literature referred to on col. 819 (especially the writings of Nöldeke, Wellhausen, and Kamphausen there mentioned).
See, for further information on the subject, the articleChronology, and the same heading in theEncyclopedia Biblica, cols. 773-799, with the literature referred to on col. 819 (especially the writings of Nöldeke, Wellhausen, and Kamphausen there mentioned).
(S. R. D.)
(B) New Testament.
1.Canon.
The New Testament is the collection of the Sacred Books of Christians. It forms in the Bible the distinctive possession of Christians, just as the Old Testament is the collection of Sacred Books which Christians share with Jews. Every term in the definition is significant and has a history. There are, first, the Books; then, the Collection; then, the Sacred Volume, complete as such in idea, though not as yet complete in its actual contents; and, lastly, the Sacred Volume in its full dimensions, as it has come down to us.
There is a double development, of quality and of quantity; of quality, as to the estimate formed of the books, their increasing recognition as sacred; and of quantity, by which the books so recognized were gradually brought up to their present number. Our duty will be to describe this double process, and we shall do so under the four heads: (α) The Growth of a specifically Christian Literature; (β) The Collection of the Books into a single volume, made up of ordered groups; (γ) The investing of this volume with the character of a Sacred Book; and (δ) The gradual settlement by which the volume assumed its present dimensions, neither less nor more.
The model throughout was the Old Testament. The result was attained when there was a definite volume called the New Testament by the side of the earlier volume called the Old Testament, complete like it, and like it endowed with the attributes of a Sacred Book. This is the consummation towards which events had been steadily moving—not at first consciously, for it was some time before the tendencies at work were consciously realized—but ending at last in the complete equation of Old Testament and New, and in the bracketing together of both as the first and second volumes of a single Bible. This is the process that we shall have to describe. And because the process before us is the gradual assimilation of New Testament and Old Testament, we shall have to include at each step all that bears upon this. For instance, at starting, it will not be enough for us simply to tell the story how the Books of the New Testament came to be written, but we shall have to point out what there was about them which fitted them to be what they afterwards became, what inherent qualities they possessed which suggested the estimate ultimately put upon them; in others words, how they came to be not only a collection of Christian books, but a collection of Christian sacred books, or part of a Bible.
(α)The Growth of a Christian Literature.1.The Pauline Epistles.—The Bible of Jesus and His disciples was the Old Testament. And both Jesus and His disciples were to all appearance content with this. It was probably two full decades after the death of Christ before there were any specifically Christian writings at all. The first generation of Christians was not given to writing. There was not only no obvious reason why it should write, but there was a positive reason why it should not write. This reason lay in the dominant attitude of Christians, which was what we call “eschatological.” The first generation of Christians lived in the daily expectation that Christ would return from heaven. The truth is, that not only were Christians expecting (as we say) the Second Coming of the Messiah, but what they expected wastheComing. The Messiah, as all Jews conceived of Him, was a superhuman being; and His First Coming as a man among men did not count as really Messianic. The whole first generation of Christians looked intently for His Coming in power and great glory, which they believed to be near at hand. In such a state of mind as this there was no motive for seeking permanence by writing. Men who imagined that they might at any moment be caught up to meet the Lord in the air were not likely to take steps for the instruction of the generations that might come after them.
Hence the first Christian writings were no deliberate product of theologians who supposed themselves to be laying the foundation of a sacred volume. They were not an outcome of the dominant tendencies of the time, but they arose rather in spite of them, in the simplest way, just from the practical needs of the moment.
It was thus that St Paul came to write his two epistles to the Thessalonians, the oldest Christian documents that we possess. By this time he was launched on his missionary labours; he had founded a number of churches, and he was going on to found others. And these earliest epistles are just the substitute for his personal presence, advice which he took occasion to send to his converts after he had left them. There are a few indications that he had sent similar communications to other churches before, but these have not been preserved. Indeed the wonder is—and it is a testimony to the strength of the impression which St Paul left upon all with whom he came into contact—that these missionary letters of his should have begun to be preserved so soon.
Both Epistles to the Thessalonians have for their object to calm somewhat the excited expectations of which we have spoken.
The first Epistle hits exactly the prominent features in the situation, when it reminds the Thessalonians how they had “turned unto God from idols, to serve a living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven,” who would deliver them from the wrath to come (1 Thess. i. 9, 10). The turning from idols was of course peculiar to the Gentile communities, but the waiting for the Messiah from heaven was common to all Christians, whatever their origin. In this we may take the epistle as typical of the state of the whole Church at the time. And there is another important passage which shows why, in spite of its natural and occasional character, the epistle exhibits the germs of that essential quality which caused all the books of the New Testament to be so highly estimated. The apostle again reminds his readers how they had received his preaching “not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God,” which showed its power by the way in which it took hold of those who believed in it (1 Thess. ii. 13). The reference is ofcourse primarily to the spoken word, but the written word had the same qualities as the spoken. It was the deep impression made by these which prepared Christians generally to accept the apostolic writings as inspired, and therefore sacred. There is no greater mistake than to suppose that the estimate formed by the early Church of its Bible was a merely arbitrary verdict imposed by an external authority; it was the expression, and the natural expression (though following certain prescribed lines), of its real sense of the value and fundamentally divine origin of the writings which it treasured.
Nearest in character to the Thessalonian Epistles are the two to Corinth, which have perhaps an interval of a year and a half between them. When 1 Corinthians was written, the attitude of the Church was still strongly eschatological (1 Cor. i. 7, 8, iii. 13-15, vii. 26, 29-31, xv. 25, 26, 51-54, xvi. 23). The thoughts of men were still set upon the near approach of the end, the troublous times that would issue in the break-up of the existing order and the return of Christ to introduce a new era. There was no idea of constructing a systematic theology; Christ was still the Jewish Messiah, and His Coming was conceived of as the Jews conceived of the coming of the Messiah, as a great supernatural event transforming the face of things and inaugurating the reign of God. In view of this approaching revolution, both the Church and the world were regarded as living from hand to mouth. It was useless to attempt to found permanent institutions; everything was provisional and for the moment. And yet, even under these conditions, some practical arrangements had to be made. The epistle is taken up with matters of this kind; either the apostle is reproving disorders and abuses actually existing in the Church, and almost sure to exist in a young community that had just adopted a novel method of life and had as yet no settled understanding of the principles involved in it; or else he is replying to definite questions put to him by his converts. In all this the epistle is still a genuine letter, and not a treatise. It only rises from time to time above the level of a letter, through the extraordinary penetration, force, enthusiasm and elevation of feeling that the apostle throws into his treatment of more or less ordinary topics. He can never rest until he has carried up the question of the moment to some higher ground of faith or conduct. It is in this incidental and digressive way that we get the description of the Gospel in i. 18-ii. 16; of the Christian ministry in chs. iii., iv.; of the principle of consideration for others in ch. ix.; of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper in chs. x., xi.; of Christian love in ch. xiii.; of the Resurrection and its consequences in ch. xv.
2 Corinthians is even more a product of the situation: it is even more taken up with personal relations. No epistle sheds more light on St Paul’s character as a man—so mobile, so tactful, so tender and affectionate, and yet so statesmanlike and so commanding. If doctrinal utterances occur from time to time, they are in every case incidental and unpremeditated.
The development of doctrine in St Paul’s epistles is due in part to the gradual subsiding of the eschatological temper, but even more to the growth of controversy. A crisis had arisen in Galatia owing to the invasion of the churches, which St Paul had founded there, by reactionary Jews. This called forth a letter53from St Paul, who felt himself compelled to grapple at close quarters with teaching which he saw cut at the very root of his own. He was thus led both to clear up for himself and to state for the sake of others his whole conception of soteriology—his answer to the question how was man to be set right before God. That was a large part, and at the moment the most crucial part, of the whole problem of religion.
Two or three years later (c.A.D.55-56) St Paul was bent on paying a visit to Rome. He was not going there straight, but to Jerusalem first. He knew that he could only do this at the imminent peril of his life. It seemed very doubtful whether he would accomplish his desire. And therefore he took the opportunity to send to the Romans what is really a summing up, not of the whole of Christianity, but of that side of Christianity which the preceding controversy had brought into special relief. He states his case as part of a larger question still—a question that inevitably became pressing at that particular time—as to the entire religious relation of Jew and Gentile.
These years of shock and conflict could not fail to have marked effect upon the shaping of definite Christian doctrine. They drew attention away from the future to the present, and to the past as leading up to the present. They compelled a man like St Paul to theorize: thought was driven inward; it was made to search for foundations, to organize itself and knit together part with part. And the impulse thus given continued. It showed itself strongly in the epistles of the next group, especially Ephesians and Colossians. These epistles took their form at once from a natural progression of thought and from a new phase of controversy, a sort of Gnosticizing theory, or theories, which perverted Christian practice and impaired the supremacy of Christ by placing other beings or entities by His side. The apostle meets this by renewed emphasis on the central position of Christ; and he at the same time carries a step farther his conception of the unity of the Church, as embracing both Jew and Gentile. The predominance of this somewhat recondite teaching gave to these epistles even more the character of treatises, which in the case of Ephesians is further enhanced by the fact that it is probably a circular letter addressed not to a single church but to a group of churches. Philemon is of course a pure letter, and Philippians mainly so, the Pastorals, as their name implies, contain advice and instructions to the apostle’s lieutenants, Timothy and Titus, in the temporary charge committed to them of churches that the apostle could not visit himself.
The Epistle to the Hebrews is an epistolary treatise of uncertain date, on the Pauline model, and by a disciple of St Paul or at least a writer strongly influenced by him, though influenced also in no small degree by the Jewish school of Alexandria represented by Philo. Of the many theories as to the address, the most plausible are perhaps those which would apply to a single congregation of Hebrew Christians in Rome, or to a local church or group of local churches in Palestine, perhaps like that of which the centre would be at Caesarea. It is not probable that the epistle was addressed to the mother church at Jerusalem.