9. Apocryphal Bookt of the Old Teitament. — (1.) The Book of Tobit (q. v.) contains an outline of Assyr- ian history (from the deportation of the Ten Tribes to the fell of Nineveh), to which the moral fiction is at- tached (Browne, Ordo S<bcI. p. 555, note; Niebnhr, Getch, Atsurt. p. 100, note ; comp. Fritzsche, Dot Buch Tobi, 1858, p. 14 sq. ; Ewald, Get(^, det F. Itr, iv, 288 sq.). To treat it as a narrative of facts, and apply it to purposes of chronological proof; as some, even re- cent, writers have done (e. g. Von Gumpach, BabyL Zeitr, p. 188), is quite to mistake its character.— (2.) As regards the Book of JudUh (q. v.), it is surprising that any one conversant with history and criticism should fell to see that this is not a record of fects, but a religious, quasi-prophetical allegory (Ordo Betel, p. 556, note ; Fritzsche, Dat B. Judith, p. 128 sq. ; Ewald, Getch. det V. Itrael, iv, 541. See idso Movers in the Bonn. Zeittchr.far kaihol. Theologie, 1885, p. 47). Nie- buhr, acknowledging this (v. t. p. 212-285), neverthe- less finds in its dates^ according to the Lat version, a background of historical truth with reference to the times of Nebuchadnezzar. Y. Gumpach (u. t. p. 161 sq.) maintains its historical character, and applies it to his own purposes with extraordinary confidence (see also Scholz, EinL indieheU. Schr\fien, 1845).— (8.) In the books of Maccabeet (q. v.) the years are regularly counted, under the name trti rijc BaotXHOc rwv '£X- Xrjvuw, meaning the nra of the Seleucidas, beginning in the autumn of B.C. 812 ; except that in the first book the epoch is made 1 Nisan of that year, while in the second book it is 1 Tisri of the foUowing year, B. C. 811, L e. eighteen months later. This, which has been sufficiency proved by earlier writers (see Ideler, Edb. der Chrond. i, 581 sq. ; Ordo Sctcl. § 440-42), is contested on inadequate grounds by Yon Gumpach (Zwei ekronol. Abhandl. 1854).
lY. New-Tettament Chronoloyy.-^Thd Gospels and Acts of the Apostles have (with one exception, Luke iii, 1) no express dates ; in the absence of these, com- binations, more or less probable, are all that the chro- nologist has to go by.
1. For the Nativity (q. v.), the dterior limit is for- nished by the death of Herod (Matt ii, 1, 19 ; Luke i, 5), the year of which event, as it is nowhere named by Josephus or any other extant historian, has to be determined by various circumstances. These are the mention of an eclipse of the moon not long before it (Ant. xvii, 6, 4 fin.), which, by calculation, can only have been that of March 12-18, B.C. 4 ; the length of Herod's reign, together with the recorded date of its commencement (Ant. xvii, 8, 1 ; comp. xiv, 14, 5 ; 16, 4), and of that of his sons— Archelaus (Anl. xvii, 18, 8 ; comp. War, ii, 7, 8), the consular year of whose de-
CHRONOLOGY
310
CHRONOLOGY
pOMd is giTen by Dkm Cass. It. ; Herod Philip (War^ xriiii 4, 6, len^ of reign and year of death) ; for Herod Antipaa, Joaephtu {Ant, xviii, 7, 2) gives the date of deposal, but not length of reign ; this, however, la known from corns (Eckhel, Doet, Num. iii, 489) to have reached his 43d year. All these indications point to B.C. 4, not long before the Passover, as the time of Herod's death. See Hkbod. Those who would impugn this conclusion urge other, discrepant statements in Josephus, or call in question either the &ct of the eclipse or its calculated date, or contend that the death of Herod could not have taken place so soon i^ter it. The inducement is that our Lord's age may not exceed thbty years at the time of his baptism, L e. at the earliest in the 15th year of Tiberius, for if this note of time is to be taken strictly, the earliest date for the Nativity should be the year B.C. 8. The ^ear be- ing supposed to be known, it is attempted to approxi- mate to the day by calculating the order of the sacer- dotal cycle, and finding at what time in the given year " the oourse of Abijah" (Luke i, 5) entered upon office. The starting-point for the reckoning is fur- nished by a Jewish tradition (Muhna, iii, 298, 8), and it is assumed that the conception of ^ohn the Baptist ensued at the expiration of Zechariah's week of ser- vice, and the Annunciation five months later (Luke i, 28-26, 86; but in the Church calendars six months). Here it should be observed that we have no reason to suppose the ancients to have been in possession of the true date, either year or day. Having ascertained, as they supposed, the year and day of the Baptism, they counted back 80 years to the Nativity (see a paper by H. Browne, on S. Clement Alex, en N.-T, Chrondogy in the Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology, 1854, i, 827 sq.). Also, it would be well that all such consid- erations as the ** fitness of things" prescribing a par- ticular year, or day of the year, for this or any other event of sacred history, should be banished from chron- ological investigations. See Jesus.