89 Crudflxion of (Jhrist Martyrdom of Stephen.
80 Conversion of PsuL 32 Conversion of Comelins.
86 Pilate sncceeded by MaroeUus as Procnrator. Jonathan (son of Ananus) Jewish High-priest
87 (jaligula Roman Emperor.
TheophiluB (brother of JonathaiO Jewish High-priest. 89 Herod Antipas banished to GauL
40 Claudius Roman Emperor.
41 Herod Agrippa L Ruler of Palestine.
42 Simon Cantberas Jewish High-priest.
48 Matthias (son of Ananos) Jewish High-priest 44 Elionaus (son of Cantheras) Jewish High-priest
Martvrdom of James.
Death of Herod Agrippa L 46 Cuspius Fadns Procurator of Judea. 47|Tlbertus Alexander Procnrator of Judna. 48Uoseph (son of Kami) sncceeded in the Jewish High- prie>4thood by Ananias (son oS Nebednus).
49 Ventidlus Cnmanus Procurator of Judsea.
53 Felix Procurator of Judea.
|Hefod Agrippa IL *' King** of Trachonitis, ete.
54 Nero Roman Emperor.
65 Porcius Festus Procurator of Judea. Ilshmael (son of Fabl) Jewish High-priest
66 Paurs First Arrival in Rome. 68 Martyrdom of James (the LessX
Albinus Procurator of Judca. Joseph Kabi Jewish High-priest.
64 Martyrdom of PanL
65 Gessius Floms Procurator of Jndaa.
66 Breaking out of the final Jewish War. Cestius Gallus besieges Jerusalem.
67 Vespasian (General of the Roman Forces in Jndiea. Theophilus succeeded by Phannlus as Jewish Hlgfap
priest Galba Roman Emperor. Simon (son of Gioras) ravages Judna. Otho, ViteUins, and Vespaiian snooeisively Roman em-
Three Jewish Parties in Jemsalem.
70 Titus destrojrs Jerusalem.
71 Bassus sent to take charge of Judsea.
79. Fulvius Sylva sent as Roman General into Jndsea.
79 1 Titus Roman' Emperor.
81 Domitian Roman Emperor.
96| Banishment of the Apoetle John to Plitmos.
{Nerva Roman Emperor. 98. Trajan Roman Emperor. 100, Close of the N.-T. (Janon.
VI. CofUrovertiei amd Litora^tfre.— The distance of the Creatioii fhnn the Christian sra, whiih has been stated with about 140 rariations, is given in the In- dian Chronology, as compnted by Grentil, at 6174 years; in the Babylonian, by Bailly, at 6158; in the Chinese, by Bailly, at 6157; in the Septoagint, by Abuliaragins, at 5508 ; while Jewish writers bring it down below the computation of Capellus, namdy, 4000, and one, Babbi Lipman, to so contracted a sum as 8616.
1. The chronology of the English Bible was regu- lated by the views of Usher (AtmaUi Vet. et Nov, Tett, first ed. foL Lend. 1650, 1654), who followed, in gen^ eral, the authority of the Hebrew text. Other chro- nologers have put themselves under the guidance of the Septnagint and Joeephus, maintaining that the modem Hebrew text has been greatly vitiated in the whole department of chronology, and more especially in the genealogical tables which respect the antedilu- vian patriarchs, as well as the ten generations imme- diately after the Flood. The examination above does not sustain this conclusion. Yet the shortened scheme, adopted by Usher fh>m the Bfasorite Jews, is recent in its prevalence among Christians when compared with the more comprehensive chronology of the S^uagint
C3HR0N0L0GY
316
CHRONOLOGY
This last was nsed before the advent of our Lord, and, being followed by the Greek fathers of the Church, was generally current, till, in the eighth century, a disposition to exchange it for the Rabbinical method of reckoning was first manifested by the venerable Bede. Roman Catholic authors, however, have usu- ally adopted the latter, fh)m the influence of the Latin Vulgate, which strictly follows the Hebrew numbers. Isaac Vossius, in his treatise De Vera JSkUe Mundi (Hag. 1659, 4to), was the first of any note who forsook the Hebrew dates. Pezron, in his work L'AnUgtdti dei Tetnt ritablU et d^f endue corUre let Juifa ei let nou- veaux Chnmologitkt (Amst 1687, 12mo), produced a great impression in favor of the lengthened period ad- vocated by Vossius. It was not, however, till the middle of the last century that Jackson produced his great work, the Chronological AnUqviHet (Lond. 1752, 8 vols. 4to). He advpcated the longer chronology of the Septuagint In tlie beginning of the present cen- tury Dr. Hales published the first volume of a labori- ous work entitled A New Analytit of Chronology ^ an undertaking which ultimately extended to four vol- umes, chiefly in confirmation and illustration of the conclusions of Jackson. Mr. Faber, in his work on pagan idolatry, offers some Judicious observations on the chronology of ancient history, treading generally in the footsteps of Hales. The Originet of Sir Wil- liam Drummond proceeds also on the ground supplied by the Septuagint chronology. A detailed statemedt of grounds for admitting the authority of the Septua- gint in preference to th^ of the original Hebrew may be found in a preliminary dissertation prefixed to the first volume of Dr. Michael Russell's Cotmoction qf Sa- cred and Profane Hittory^from the Death o/Jothua to the Decline of the Kingdomt of Itratd and Judah (Lond. 1827, 8 vols. 8vo).
2. Upon the data we have considered above, three principal systems of Biblical Chronology have been founded, which may be termed the Long System, the Short, and the Rabbinical. All, or almost all, have erred on the side of claiming for their results a greater accuracy than the nature of the evidence upon which they rested rendered possible. Another failing of these chronologers is a tendency to accept, through a kind of &lse analogy, long or short numbers and com- putations for intervals, rather according as they have adopted the long or the short reckoning of the patri- archal genealogies than on a consideration of special evidence. It is as though they were resolved to make the sum as great or as small as possible. The Rab- bins have in their chronology affqrded the strongest example of this error, having so shortened the inter- vals as even egregiously to t^row out the dates of the time of the Persian rule. The German school is here an exception, for it has generally fidlen into an oppo- site extreme, and required a far greater time than any derivable from the Biblical numbers for the earlier ages, while taking the Rabbinical date of the Exodus, and so has put two portions of its chronology in vio- lent contrast. We do not lay much stress upon the opinions of the early Christian writers, or even Jose- phus : their method was uncritical, and they accepted the numbers best known to them without any feeling of doubt.