The chief advocates of the Long Chronology are Jackson, Hales, and Des Vignoles. They take the Sept for the patriarchal generations, and adopt the long interval fhnn the Exodus to the Foundation of Solomon's Temple. The Short Chronology has had a multitude of illustrious supporters, owing to its hav- ing been from Jerome's time the recognised i^ystem of the West Usher may be considered as its most able advocate. He follows the Hebrew in the patriarchal generation?, ^d takes the 480 years from tiie Exodus to the Foundation of Solomon's Temple. The Rab- binical Chronology has lately come into much notice from its partial reception, chiefly by the German
school. It accepts the Biblibal numbers, but makea the most arbitrary corrections. For the date of the Exodus it has virtually been accepted by Bonsen, Lepsius, and Lord A. Hervey. The system of Bon- sen we may regard as constituting a fourtii daaa cf itself, based upon theories not only independent ot, but repugnant to the Bible. For the time before the Exodus he discards all Biblical chronological data, and reasons altogether, as it appears to as, on philo- logical considerations.
Creation of Adam. . . .
Flood
Abram leaves Haran .
Exodui
FoundatioQ of Temple Deatructton of Temple
Peta-
Tios.
2327 1S61 1531 1012
U*h«r.
B.O.
4004 8348 1921 1401 1012 6$8
HaI«.
a.o. 5411 8155 2076 1648 1027
586
Jack.
5426 3170 2023 1603 1014 686
dr. «o",OM! dr. 10,000
19S0
iom!
In the post-diluvian period Hales rejects tiie Second Cainan, and reckons Terah's age at Abram's birth 130 instead of 70 years ; Jackson accepts the Second Cai- nan, and does not make any change in the second case ; Usher and Petavius follow the Heb., but the former alters the generation of Terah, while the latter does not. Bunsen requires ** for the Noachian period about ten millenia before our era, and for the beginning of our race another ten thousand years, or very little more" {OuUinet^ ii, 12). These conclusions necessi- tate the abandonment of all belief in the historical character of the Biblical account of the times before Abraham. The writer does indeed speak of ''facts and traditions ;" his &cts, however, as fiu* as we can perceive, are the results of a theory of language, and tradition is, ftx>m its nature, no guide in chronology. It is, however, certain that no Shemitic scholar has ac^ cepted Bunsen's theory. For the time from the Ex- odus to the Foundation of Solomon's Temple, Usher alone takes the 480 years ; the rest adopt longer pe- riods, according to their explanations of the other numbers of this interval ; but Bunsen calculates by generations. The period of the kings, from the found- ation of Solomon's Temple, is very nearly the same in the computations of Jackson, Usher, and Petavius: Hales lengthens it by supposing an interregnum of 11 years after the death of Amaziah ; Bunsen shortens it by reducing the reign of Manasseh f^m 55 to 45 years.
I llie former theory is improbable and xmcritical ; the latter is merely the result of a supposed necessity.
8. The best authorities on chronology in general are Ideler's thorough Handbuch d. math. u. fechMttch. Chro» nologie (Berl. 1825, 2 vols.) and ffandbuch d. Chronol (Berl. 1881). The methods and results of these works most pertinent to Biblical chronology are also pursued in the first part of Browne's excellent Chdo Sadonan (Lond. 1844). Comp. Matzka, Chronol. in all. $. Ei»diem (Wien, 1844). Jarvis's Introd. to the ffittory of tie Church (N. T. and Lond. 1845). is a ftindamental in- vestigation of ancient eras with reference to the Chris- tian, and is remarkable for the evidence there giren of an error in the Roman annals between B.C. 45 and A.D. 160, in consequence of which the author carries every event between these points one year farther back. A synopsis of the argument is given in Strong's Harm, and Esipoa, of the Gotpelt (N. T. 1852), Ap- pend. I.
One of the earliest Christian systematic duondo- gies is the Pentabiblum of Julius Airicanns (in the 3d cent.), of which only a few fhigments remain. An- other b the Chromcon of Eusebius (4th cent.), of the Latin translation of which by Jerome an edition with notes was published by S<^iger in 1658; and the
I Armenian version has since been discovered and pul^ lished, with a Latin translation, at Venice, 181 8. There is also a famous Spanish commentary upon this chn»n- icle by Alfonso li'osUto (Salamanca, 1506, 5 vols. foL).
I The Chromcon Patchale (ed. Dufresne, Par. 1689, fbl., and by Dindorf, Bonn, 1832) is a Byzantine work ar-
CHRONOLOGY, CHRISTIAN 81? CHRONOLOGY, CHRISTIAN
huiged upon the bads of the Easter festival. There is also the Jewish Chronicon mundi majm et rnimuj or Seder Olam (D^n? ^"JD, in Hebrew, Amsterd. 1711, 4to ; in Latin, with a commentary, by J. Meyer, Am- sterd. 1649, 4to), the former part of which is reputed to have been composed about A.D. 180, while the latter is of more recent date.
The foundation of the modem science of chronology may be said to have been laid by J. Scaliger, in his work De Emendatkne Temporum (Par. 1588, fol. ; en- larged, Leyd. 1598 ; also Geneva, 1629). Another im- portant work of that age is that of D. Petavius (or Pe- tan), De Dodrina Temporum (Par. 1627, 2 vols, fol.), with its continuation, Uranologion (Par. 1680, foL), and the abridgment, RaHonarium Temporum (Par. 1630, 8vo^ and since). Other important treatises bearing more or less directly on Biblical chronology, besides those mentioned above, are: Oalvisii Opus Chronolo- fficum (Lips. .1605, and since) ; Riccioli, Chronohgia lUformata (Bon. 1669) ; Florentini, De armo primi- tivo (Aug. Yind. 1621) ; Labbii et Briettii Chronoh- gia kutorica (Par. 1670) ; Des Vignoles, Chnmologie de tHisioire Samte (Berl. 1788, 2 vols. 4to) ; Marsham, Canon ChromcuM (Lond. 1672 ; Lpz. 1676 ; Frcft. 1696) ; Newton, Chronology (Lond. 1728) ; Blahr, Chronolrgy and History (London, 1764, 1768) ; Kennedy, Aitro- wm. Chromology (London, 1672) ; Playfair, Syttem of Chronof, (Edinb. 1784); Clinton, FcuH Hellenici (Oxf. 1884-30); Clemencet, rArt de verifier Us daU$ (Par. 1818). More specific are : Vitringa, Hypo^fposis Met, et ckronoloffia (Havn. 1774) ; Bengel, Ordo tempontm (2d ed. Stattg. 1770) ; Bennigsen, Bibtische Ckronolo- gie (Lpz. 1784) ; Frank, Nov, tyet, ehronologue (Gdtt. 1788 ; abridgm. Dess. 1788) ; Tiele, Chronol. d, alt. Tett, (Brem. 1839) ; Archinard, Chronol, sacrSe (Par. 1841); Seyffarth, Chronol. sacra (Lpz. 1846); Akers, BibHcal Chronology (Cindn. 1855); Anon. Palmoni (Lond. 1851) ; also Capellns, Chronologia Sacra (Par. 1655); Allen, Chain of Script. Chronol. (Lond. 1659); Bedford, Script. Chronology (Lond. 1780) ; Cunning^ hame. Chronology^ etc. (Lond. 1884 sq.) > Bosanquet, Chronology of Dan, (Lond. 1848) ; also Assyr, and ffeb. Chronology compared On the Jour, Royal A s. Soc.^ Lond. 1861, p. 148 sq.) ; Fausset, Sacred Chrbnology (Oxf. 1855) ; with many others of less extent. Compare also Prideaux, Old and New Testament Connected; Shuck- ford, Sacred and Profane History of the World Comtect- ed; Memoires de VAcadimie des Inscriptions et Belles- Lettres; Michaelis, Zeitrechnung von der SUndJIuth bis Salomo (in the Gotting, Mag. der Wissensch, 1 Jahrg.) ; Gesenins, De Peniateuchi Samarit. Origine (Hal. 1815) ; Hegewisch, Einl. indiekisL Chron, (Alt 1811) ; Beer's Abhandlungen atr Erldut, d, /tUen Zeitreehn, (Leipz. 1752) ; SUberschlag, Chronohgie der WeU (Berl. 1788) ; Parker, Chronology (Lond. 1859) ; Rdckerath, Biblische Chronologie (M&nst 1865); Lewin, Fasti Sacri (Lond. 1865); Shimeall, BibU Chronology (N.Y. 1860); Von Gompach, A Itjud. Kalendar(Br\lBa, 1848), and Zeitreehn. d. Bab. u, Assyr. (Heidelb. 1852). See Vulgar ^Eba.