http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ mirrored file
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================

Chronological Falsehoods

*By Ernest L. Martin, Ph.D., 1998*

[....]
What I wish to discuss is a
historical difficulty that has yet to be solved to the satisfaction of
any intelligent scholar. Sir Isaac Newton over 300 hundred years ago
devoted a great deal of his time in an attempt to solve this historical
matter we are discussing, but he was unable to bring the subject into
any reliable consensus of agreement that would satisfy all the
historical, astronomical and biblical factors that would make the matter
clear. Some scholars a few years after Newton thought they had solved
the problem (and, they blithely became contented that the matter was
solved and went merrily on their way without any further investigation
into the historical problem). Indeed, the scholarly world today has even
adopted what those scholars after Sir Isaac Newton suggested was true,
and even now their conclusions have rarely been challenged. On the other
hand, those who were wise in historical matters were well aware that the
situation was not solved and a few brave souls have tried to solve the
matter on their own.

What is this problem of which we are all concerned? It is to comprehend
historical events before the time of Alexander the Great in a way that
satisfactorily blends all the documentary evidence from historical
records with astronomical data (notably eclipse records and other
planetary details) that would bring full harmony into all chronological
aspects of the Persian and Neo-Babylonian periods in history. Believe it
or not, that period of time (that reaches backwards from B.C.375 in the
later Persian period to the start of the seventh century B.C.) is not
sufficiently known with exactitude. The reason this presents a
difficulty is because /all /of the prophecies of the Old Testament that
have a chronological basis attached to them have their beginnings or
endings within that crucial period. In a word, if we do not understand
the exact sequence of years over that 200 years of time, then we are
going to be using chronological falsehoods as benchmarks in trying to
adopt biblical prophecies as they relate to the coming of Christ Jesus
into the world and the End of the Age. It is most important that we
comprehend the precise chronological years for the whole period of the
Neo-Babylonian and Persian governments on earth.

At the beginning of this century, Dr. E.W. Bullinger in his "/Companion
Bible/" endeavored to straighten out the chronology of the period of
Ezra and Nehemiah. He thought that he had solved that particular period
of time, but his suggestions have proved to be wrong. There is no
scholar today who even gives the opinions of Bullinger a second glance.
The problem was, Bullinger gave no real secular historical information
that was backed up with astronomical data that could vindicate that his
assumptions were correct.

A short time later, a scholar and historian by the name of Martin Anstey
in his book "The Romance of Biblical Chronology" made a further attempt
to solve the matter. What was excellent about Anstey's work is the fact
that he so brilliantly identified the main problem in sorting out the
chronology of the secular world at this crucial time period. He showed
in the clearest of ways that the world’s scholars had gone over to
accepting (in a dogmatic sense) the astronomical and secular historical
opinions of a man from Alexandria, Egypt who lived in the second century
of our era. That man was Claudius *Ptolemy*. *Ptolemy* was accepted as
infallible because he mentioned seven lunar *eclipses* that occurred
within the late Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods. These
astronomical factors seemed to vindicate a table of the kings (called
the Canon of Kings and mentioned by *Ptolemy*) who ruled in those areas
Middle Eastern areas since 747 B.C. (according to *Ptolemy's* reckoning).

Anstey with great dexterity demonstrated that accepting *Ptolemy* in a
dogmatic way was a very precarious and dangerous procedure. Adopting the
opinions of this Egyptian astronomer (whose first business was that of
being an astrologer) as being the sole authority for understanding the
chronology of the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods was seen by Anstey
as a reckless endeavor. Anstey was right! Yet, the whole secular world
of the scholars (and sadly, even those who held the Scriptures in
esteem) went over to accept *Ptolemy's* opinions in an infallible sense.

Very few even questioned the conclusions of this early
astronomer/astrologer. And today, when you look at any historical work
or encyclopaedia concerning the dates of years within the Neo-Babylonian
periods, you will see the opinions of *Ptolemy* in full evidence and
with a rank of infallibility surrounding the dates he indicated.

Anstey saw the danger in this approach adopted by the scholars and
accepted by all the intelligentsia in the world. As soon as I read
Anstey's concern a little over forty years ago, I began to share his
apprehension regarding this matter. What Anstey did was to make an
attempt to straighten out the chronological mess that *Ptolemy* has
bequeathed to us in trying to understand that critical two hundred years
of history. He gave a noble attempt and he must be congratulated for his
efforts. He made a courageous and reasonable attempt, but even he did
not utilize to the fullest extent the eclipse, stellar and planetary
data that could help make the period much more understandable. Indeed,
some new discoveries in astronomical matters have come to the fore since
Anstey wrote and they all need to be considered. To make it plain,
Anstey's reconstruction (though a major contribution to solving the
mess) was not backed up with reliable astronomical data that could
harmonize the chronological history of the Neo-Babylonian and Persian
periods that would be recognizable to all scholars. Scholars want
indisputable proofs, and I do not blame them. The fact is, I am not out
to chastise the scholars because I have also been misled on certain
important subjects over the years. But what I do feel we need, is for
all historians and biblical professionals to at least look at the
available evidence. If they do in honesty, they will observe that there
are some outstanding deficiencies in the present system that the world
has dogmatically accepted as infallible. The truth is, though, most
modern scholars do not even realize that they are so dependent on *Ptolemy*.

Recognizing a Problem in History is Important to Solving It

What I admire about the efforts of Anstey is the fact that he saw what
the problem was and he did not try to avoid it. He wanted to solve the
question in the best way he could. And though Anstey certainly
identified the difficulty that needs to be solved, he was not able to
solve it himself. This is not to his discredit, because the subject is a
vast undertaking and it requires a host of committed scholars who will
be devoted to solving it. It will not be easy to resolve. For one thing,
it requires a professional understanding of astronomy and particularly a
thorough knowledge of eclipse phenomena as they relate to historical
events. When I saw Anstey's work over forty years ago, I immediately
tossed in my hat in trying to solve the problem. Though some progress
was made in a few areas, I have never been satisfied that the secular
chronological indications involving the Neo-Babylonian and Persian
periods have been cleared up.

However, there is a positive side to all of this. What I have been
discussing up to now IS NOT the chronology of the biblical revelation. I
am speaking in this Prophetic Report about secular chronology on which
most scholars base their comprehension of biblical chronology. Indeed, I
have provided to all of you (over the past twenty years) a detailed
chronology from the time of Adam to that of Christ (and that chronology
has only had to be changed in one minor area as we grew in knowledge).
When one looks at biblical chronology, it is consistent and harmonious
from Adam to Christ. True, it does require a proper interpretation of
biblical prophecies (especially those of Daniel), but once the
scriptural interpretations are understood and accepted, we find that
there are exactly 4000 years (to the very day) from the creation of
Adam, our first parent, to the official introduction of Christ Jesus
into this world. If you would like this proved, send for two Prophetic
Reports that I have written titled "Chronology — the Key to Prophetic
Understanding" (Parts One and Two) numbered A026 and A027. These Reports
will make the matter of biblical chronology abundantly clear.

The problem, however, IS NOT the chronology of the Bible. It is the
chronology of the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods as understood by
modern historians and theologians. Why is this a difficulty? Because
almost all scholars of the Bible begin their countdown of biblical
chronological indications /with false Babylonian and Persian dates
/provided to us by the astrologer Claudius *Ptolemy*. This is where the
problem lies. The scholars are not willing to depend solely on the Bible
(indeed, they even treat it as a secondary choice or avoid it
altogether). They focus their attention almost universally to the
standard secular records that they have accepted from *Ptolemy* in order
to provide chronological benchmarks even for indications of dates that
are given in the Bible. By doing this, they have effectively corrupted
the very basis of biblical chronology.

Indeed, it is the habitual practice of most prophetic interpreters
(including Herbert W. Armstrong, the Seventh-Day Adventists, the
Jehovah's Witnesses, the Baptists, the Catholics, and individuals such
as Hal Lindsey, Jack Van Impe, etc.) to automatically begin many of
their prophetic schemes not from purely biblical dates but from the
chronological indications provided to us by the great astrologer from
Egypt. This procedure mandates conclusions that do not have the Holy
Scriptures as their basis and standard. They then produce prophetic
dates that are not biblical in any way. Yes, they may even use biblical
chronological prophecies as the length of time between important
historical events that lead up to the coming of Christ or to events
associated with the End of the Age, but then they attach those biblical
time sequences to /false /Babylonian and Persian dates that are as much
in error as a three dollar bill. That is the problem. Most of the
interpreters do not even realize what the problem is that they face.
That is why Sir Isaac Newton, Dr. Bullinger and Martin Anstey were so
helpful. They recognized the problem and this is much to their credit.

An Example of the Chronological Problem

Let me give you an illustration of what most of the present prophetic
interpreters do, and why they are wrong. If you will look closely in the
Holy Scriptures there is /only ONE /place in the Old Testament where we
have a secular historical date that equals a biblical date. That happens
to be the references indicating the length of the reign of
Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon. His 19^th year is equaled in the Bible
to the 11^th year of Zedekiah the last king of Judah (II Kings 25:1-8).
[There are other secular dates such as the first year of Cyrus (II
Chronicles 36:22 with Ezra 1:1), but that date can only be determined by
the application of the 70 prophetic years of the Babylonian Captivity
mentioned by Jeremiah and Daniel. This is a valid indication, but it
involves the interpretation of prophetic time periods and not simple
historical matters like that of the 19^th year of Nebuchadnezzar
equaling the 11^th year of Zedekiah.] As for the New Testament, there is
also /only ONE /place where secular history intersects precisely with a
New Testament chronological statement. That is the 15^th year of
Tiberius Caesar (Luke 3:1,2), equaling the year Jesus commenced his
ministry which we can show to be a Sabbatical Year (Autumn A.D.27 to
A.D.28). Up to now, I have taken /this /Sabbatical Year to be the
terminus to Daniel’s 69 weeks (of his 70 weeks). This appears to be
proper, but there is yet much work to do to be sure.

What almost all prophetic interpreters do with their chronological
values that they have in the Holy Scriptures is TO LINK the biblical
time periods ONTO those /false/ secular time indications (those three
words in this sentence require capitalization for emphasis). By doing
this, they attach some thing true to some thing that is false, and the
conclusion is always in error. For example, if you wanted to know when
the 19^th year of Nebuchadnezzar was in history, you would normally go
to an encyclopaedia and find what the scholars said the date was. It
will be either 586 or 587 B.C. (three hundred years ago the year was
normally given as 585 B.C.). But this date is that which is derived from
the astrologer *Ptolemy*. Even these three suggested years are in
various ways based on *Ptolemy*’s opinions that he expressed some 800
years after Nebuchadnezzar, and founded on faulty astronomical data
(that we have lately found out). It is no wonder that people who are
setting dates for the End-Time are wrong. This is because they are
attaching the biblical time periods onto false secular ones. This makes
the whole of their prophetic schemes to be wrong from the very start.
But wait a moment. There is hope. God said he would reveal His truths at
the End of the Age concerning his prophecies. We are now closer to that
Age. It is just over the horizon. We can now know that *Ptolemy* was as
wrong as he could be in his chronological evaluations. Let us see.

A Major Breakthrough Has Occurred

In the last twenty years, we have had the research of an astronomer from
John Hopkins University, Dr. Robert R. Newton, who has written
extensively on the falsities given to us by the astrologer *Ptolemy*. He
wrote a book titled: "/The Crimes of Claudius *Ptolemy*/." In that book,
and in several others that Dr. Newton has written since, he has shown in
the clearest of language that anyone can check (and I have done so),
that *Ptolemy* actually manufactured his eclipse records that he claimed
to have observed in the early records that have been used by all modern
authorities to justify the chronological basis for the Neo-Babylonian
and Persian periods of time. The outcome of this excellent and
interesting research by Dr. Newton (who died about 5 years ago) is the
fact that all scholars need to review all over again the secular
historical records along with accurate astronomical data that are
capable of dovetailing with these secular accounts in order to make a
harmonious and understandable chronological scheme for the
Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods. This is precisely what I hope to do
(with other interested people) in my new book on "Biblical Chronology"
which I hope to bring out in the future.

What it means is: we cannot automatically (as most of us have done
before) simply look up what the scholars say the 19^th year of
Nebuchadnezzar was, either 586 or 587 B.C. (or even 585 B.C. as the
early historians 300 years ago thought) and use that date as a correct
benchmark to attach the chronological indications in the prophecies of
Daniel or the Book of Revelation. We have to go back to the basics once
again and figure out just when the true secular dates were for the years
of Nebuchadnezzar. Once we arrive at the true dates, then we can use
those years as the proper benchmarks that will provide us with a correct
understanding of the biblical prophecies. It is imperative that students
of the Bible begin to correct this dangerous fault imposed on the world.

Early Scholars Refute Claudius *Ptolemy*

Modern scholars of the last 300 years should not have been so quick to
accept the opinions of the astrologer Claudius *Ptolemy* in deriving
what they consider to be "infallible" dates for the kings who ruled in
the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods. They should have listened to
some contemporaries of *Ptolemy* who were very prone to criticize the
conclusions of *Ptolemy*.

For example, there was Plutarch (the great classical historian of the
second century who lived at the same time as *Ptolemy*). He said that
the account of Solon the Greek speaking to Croseus of Lydia was a
narrative that made sense in any way one would look at it, except that
the chronological canons that many were accepting at the time would not
allow the conversations to have occurred. There were about 50 years
discrepancy that would not permit the two men to have ever spoken to one
another (that is, if one accepts *Ptolemy's* opinion). But Plutarch said:

*"As for his interview with Croesus, some pretend to prove from
chronology that it is fictitious. But since the story is so famous,
and so well attested, nay, what is more, so agreeable to Solon’s
character, so worthy of his wisdom and magnanimity, I* [Plutarch]
*cannot prevail with myself to reject it for the sake of certain
chronological tables, which * /*thousands * /*are correcting to this
day, without being able to bring them to any certainty." *

*Plutarch’s Lives, /Solon/, Langhorne’s trans.*

Plutarch gave further problems with chronology in the Persian period
that we are discussing. Again he said:

*"Thucydides and Charon of Lampsacus relate that Xerxes* [the
Persian king] *was then dead, and that it was to his son Artaxerxes
that Themistocles addressed himself. But Ephorus, Dinon, Clitarchus,
Heraclides, and several others, write that Xerxes himself was then
upon the throne. The opinion of Thucydides seems most agreeable to
chronology, though* [chronology of that time] *is not perfectly well
settled."*

*Plutarch’s Lives, /Themistocles/, Langhorne’s translation*

The above comments are true and honest evaluations by Plutarch, and I
believe he was correct. Those who held with *Ptolemy* of Egypt would
make the encounter to be not possible, but who could prove that the
chronological canons were correct when /*thousands*/ at the time
(Plutarch said) were working on them trying to mend their errors. But
now, it is not /*thousands */that are trying to correct this
chronological malady, it has now /*millions*/.

Early Chronology Grossly Misunderstood

Let us now look at the accounts of classical writers who lived within
the crucial period we have been discussing, or who referred to events
within that period which were well known to later people. Let us first
look at the narrative of Xenophen. All the dates given in parentheses
are the normal Ptolemaic dates. Before 375 B.C., these dates may have to
be changed as much as 54 years and one month. I will explain why later.

Xenophen (c.420 B.C.) made a journey to Persia and tells about
historical events of the Babylonians and Persians, which are
diametrically opposite those related by Herodotus and others. Most
commentators appraise Xenophen’s works with the title of "historical
romances." Most scholars believe there is very little substantial truth
to support them. While there are some things of worth in Xenophen it’s
either that he is right and all the others wrong, or that he is wrong
along with many others who contradict him.

Thucydides (c.430 B.C.) wrote a history of the Peloponnesian War. He
said in his first paragraph that history was in such a corrupt state
that he could not tell of events in the very generation that preceded
his own.

Ctesias (c.400 B.C.) was also a historian well known in the ancient
world. This man was a Greek physician who lived at the court of the
Persian King Artaxerxes Mnemon as the king's private doctor. "During his
stay in Persia, Ctesias gathered all the information that was attainable
on that country" (Smith’s Classical Dictionary) — all about its history,
customs, chronology, etc. But he was also called by many ancient
historians the greatest liar that ever came on the earth. For example,
he was convinced that Nineveh was destroyed by the Medes in 877 B.C.,
but according to our modern reckoning based on *Ptolemy*, he was 265
years off the mark. That is just one absurdity out of many that Ctesias
fabricated and yet he supposedly got all his information direct from the
Persian records of the king. Sir John Forsdyke, in his valuable book
"/Greece Before Homer/," said that Ctesias’ Persian informants (if he
got his information from them) must have had very short memories and
could not relate the true history of what was happening in Babylon and
Persia a mere 100 years before their time (page 77). In spite of these
anomalies, modern scholars prefer the Gentile records more than those of
the Bible.

Scholars Want to Alter Bible Chronology to Agree With Faulty Secular
Dates

Note what Professor Mitchell had to say relying on the eclipse data of
*Ptolemy*.

*"The dates herewith given in Babylonian and Assyrian history admit
of no uncertainty since they are determined by *eclipses*. As a
consequence, the dates appearing in the Bible /must be altered/ to
fit those of verified history" (Prof. S.A. Mitchell, "/*Eclipses* of
the Sun/," p.29). Also "As a result of the Babylonian *eclipses*, it
has been necessary /to alter the chronology of the Bible/ by
lowering the dates to the extent of twenty-five years" *

*/ibid/., p.1.9*

Oh? Let me ask a few questions. When did Columbus discover the New
World? 1492 without doubt! But if some chronologer told you it was 1254
A.D., or another said 1148 A.D. another 1570 A. D., and others gave many
other dates, you might well ask them to have their heads examined. And
rightly so, because it can be proved that Columbus discovered America in
1492 A.D. After all, the event was less than 500 years ago and there
could hardly be a mistake in our modern times.

But strange as it may seem, when many ancient historians who lived after
the time of Alexander the Great endeavored to calculate important dates
in the Babylonian and Persian times (in some cases a mere 200 to 300
years before their own times),/ chaos reigned/! The understanding of the
Babylonian period and its chronology was no easy matter for ancient
historians. Let us see.

Take an important year within the Babylonian Period (the benchmark year
for the understanding of the chronology of the Old Testament) which is
the 19^th year of Nebuchadnezzar. The Bible said this year was the same
as the 11^th of Zedekiah, the last king of Judah. This year is dated to
585 B.C. by the Canon of *Ptolemy* (scholars have manipulated the date
and have stretched to be either 586 or 587 B.C.). But, was this date
like Columbus’ 1492? Did all subscribe to it? Was it the standard date
accepted by all ancient historians? Hardly! Notice what many of the
early historians had to say.

Josephus (1^st century A.D.) gave a date very different. Josephus was a
historian of the first rank, a priest who had access to and referred to
the archives in the Temple in Jerusalem as well as all the records in
the imperial library at Rome including Babylonian, Egyptian, Jewish,
Greek, Persian histories. He stated quite confidently that Jerusalem
fell to the Babylonians in 639 B.C., but when he followed the chronology
of Berosus, he said it was 619 B.C.

Ctesias (4^th century B.C.), whom we referred to before, shows it was
probably 850 B.C. (since he placed the fall of Nineveh in 877 B.C., and
it fell 27 years before the destruction of Jerusalem, the date 850 B.C.
is reached.) Demetrius (last of 3^rd century B.C.) was a Jewish
historian from Alexandria. He worked out with great precision that there
were 338 years and 3 months from the capture of Jerusalem by
Nebuchadnezzar to King *Ptolemy* (i.e. 222 B.C.). Thus, by his
chronology, Jerusalem fell in 560 B.C. See Clement of Alexandria,
/Stromata/, 1, 21, 141.

Africanus (3^rd century A.D.), the first Christian chronologer, shows
that Jerusalem fell in 629 B.C. (Archer, /Jerome's Commentary/, p.96).
But Hippolytus (3^rd century A.D.), one of the most educated men in
Italy, stated that Jerusalem fell in 664 B.C. (Finegan, /Handbook of
Biblical Chronology/, p.147). Yet, Jerome, in the late fourth and early
fifth century A.D., who was one of the great historians of the past and
editor of the chronologies of Africanus and Eusebius, said Jerusalem
fell in the year 591 B.C. See Finegan, /ibid.,/p.185.

So there it is. For one important benchmark date in history, we have
some scholars saying it was 585 B.C. (and others say 586 or 587 B.C.).
Ctesias, however, said the capture of Jerusalem was 850 B.C.; while
Hippolytus said, 664 B.C.; Josephus 639 B.C.; Africanus, 629 B.C.;
Jerome, 591 B.C.; Demetrius, 560 B.C. and Tertullian, 507 B.C. All of
these dates are supposed to tell us /*when*/ /*one year of human history
occurred*/. Which one should we select? They are all supported by
so-called chronological records given to us by various historians of the
past. It would be the height of folly to try to reconcile them all. That
is not possible.

Another benchmark which historians recognize as significant in
standardizing the chronology of the Babylonian and Persian periods, is
the year that Babylon was captured by Cyrus. This is dated by the Canon
of *Ptolemy* to the year 538 B.C. (the second century record that is
followed by most historians today). But were the ancients certain of
this year? Others expressed different opinions.

Diodorus (1^st century B.C.), one of the finest historians of classical
times, said the year Cyrus took Babylon was in 560 B.C. See Finegan’s
/Handbook to Biblical Chronology/, p.168. Diodorus simply followed the
majority of Greek historians who "placed the accession of Cyrus /wrongly
/in the first year of the 55^th Olympiad (i.e. 560 B.C.)" (Forsdyke,
/ibid./, p.71). The Greeks did this and it is 22 years different from
what people accept today. These anomalies in the historical records
ought to have shown red flags to modern historians, but to no avail.

Eusebius (4^th century A.D.) also followed the Greeks in this matter of
Cyrus’ first year, and made Cyrus’ entry into Babylon in 560 B.C.
(Finegan, p.168) or by another way of figuring it, 556 B.C. (Archer,
/Jerome's Commentary/, pp.99,100). As anyone can see, both dates are
different from 538 B.C. Jerome (4^th century A.D.) said that by "the
most careful computation," Cyrus’ entry into Babylon was in 560 B.C.
(Archer, /ibid/., pp.105, 109). In this he followed Eusebius and the
Greeks as a whole. Clement of Alexandria (3^rd century A.D.) also
asserted that the first year of Cyrus and the time he entered Babylon to
become its king was in 560 B.C. (/Lange’s Commentary/, vol.7, p.207).
But Julius Hilarianus (c.4^th century A.D.) was confident that Cyrus’
first year was 599 B.C. (/ibid/.). And Prosper Aquitan (5^th century
A.D.) said it was 503 B.C. (/ibid/.) Orosius (5^th century A.D.) said it
was really 516 B.C. (/ibid/.). What a mixture of dates for one date in
the history of Persia!

What is the outcome of all this? Pliny, the natural scientist of the
first century, said that the period from the 700’s to the 400’s B.C.
(the very period we are concerned with) has many chronological
difficulties in it and that "the chronicles, were without doubt, /in
error/" (Book XXXV, 58). As an example of the chaos that ruled during
the period, he cited an event that some dated to 420 B.C. (i.e. the
89^th Olympiad) yet others in the 95^th (400 B.C.). These types of
errors are widespread in the ancient records, but modern historians
ignore them.

However, by the end of the 4^th century A.D. all chronological matters
of the past were supposedly worked out by Ambrose, Bishop of Milan.
According to Augustine, the great Catholic historian of the fifth
century, Ambrose was able to account for Plato having such wonderful
biblical teaching in his dialogues. The answer supposedly became plain
to Ambrose and Augustine, but they were so far off base that their
suggestions become laughable.

*"As to the utility of history, moreover, what a great question our
own Ambrose * /*has set at rest*/*....did not the illustrious
bishop, when by his investigations into profane history he had
discovered that Plato made a journey into Egypt at the time Jeremiah
was there, show that it is much more likely that Plato learned his
teachings from Jeremiah." *

*Augustine, /On Christian Doctrine/, II, 43.*

This chronological belief of Augustine and Ambrose is absurd. In fact,
Plato flourished about 380 B.C. while Jeremiah went to Egypt, according
to present chronology, about 585 B.C. There are 200 years between them.

Summary of Material

Let us understand a thumbnail’s sketch of the problem at hand. Top
historians of the past admitted that they often had insufficient
knowledge to understand even what happen a generation or two before
their own times. Herodotus (450 B.C.) didn’t know what had happened 75
years before he lived. Thucydides (430 B.C.) said he dare not consider
recording events 30 years before his time because the records were so
much in error. Ctesias (4^th century B.C.) and his Persian advisors at
the king’s court, were wrong to the extent of over 250 years on events
that occurred no more than 300 years before his time. Josephus,
Demetrius, Africanus, Hippolytus, Eusebius, Diodorus, Jerome, Augustine,
Ambrose, Clement, Justin, Hilarianus, Prosper, Orosius, /all/ have
different dates for two cardinal benchmarks of the Babylonian period
(which can easily be understood from biblical chronology). And remember
the classic statement by Plutarch (who lived at the very time of
Claudius *Ptolemy*). He said /thousands /were trying to adjust the many
/contradictions /of the Babylonian and Persian periods, but without
success. And Pliny also said about our early historical period under
discussion: "/the chronicles, were without doubt, in error/."

Now all of these "authorities" agree on the year of Alexander’s conquest
of Persia (no dispute whatever, nor should there be), but for the 300
years before that time, the period is beset with many, many
difficulties. That is, unless we go to the only source that can
straighten out this confusion. That source is God’s Word. Instead of
going first to Nebuchadnezzar’s 19^th year from a Babylonian perspective
(that is, saying: "Let us go to Babylon for a proper chronology"), we
should adopt God's way and say: "To understand Gentile chronology, /go
to the Bible/." I object most strenuously that we of modern times should
resort to the Babylonians and Egyptians.

The Views of Claudius *Ptolemy* Are Still Considered by Scholars
Today as Perfect

The opinions of Claudius *Ptolemy* are looked on as infallible. But
there are problems galore with *Ptolemy*. Nevertheless, *Ptolemy* is
still accepted. This is because he lists seven *eclipses* of the moon
which occurred at intervals from his dates of 747 B.C. to 330 B.C. These
seven *eclipses*, because they agree with our modern astronomical
tables, give *Ptolemy* a form of authenticity that none of the others
had of the /thousands /Plutarch said were working on chronology. Not all
things were sensible. Look at the lunar *eclipses* of *Ptolemy*.

*Ptolemy* recorded *eclipses* of the moon in the 1^st and 2^nd year of
Merodach-baladan (which according to him was on March 19, 720 B.C.;
March 8, 719 B.C.; and September 1, 719 B.C.). Another was in the 5^th
year of Nabopolassar (April 22, 600 B.C.). Also one in the 7^th of
Cambyses (July 16, 522 B.C.). And two more in the 20^th and 31^st of
Darius Hystapses (November 19, 501 B.C. and April 25, 490 B.C.).

These seven *eclipses* scattered throughout the 400 odd years from 747
to 330 B.C. all agree with the modern tables showing the motions of the
moon. This is why they are accepted by historians as proof positive that
*Ptolemy*’s chronology of the Babylonian and Persian periods is correct
at the expense of all others who say otherwise. Thus, his reckoning is
considered perfect, infallible and indestructible.

The historian Prideaux, of the eighteenth century who helped to
establish *Ptolemy*’s infallibility, said:

*"*Ptolemy*’s Canon being fixed by the *eclipses*, the truth of it
may at any time be demonstrated by astronomical calculations, and no
one has ever calculated those *eclipses* but has 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 [sic], it is not for
the authority of any other human writer whatsoever to be receded from."*

These are strong words. He placed hedges of infallibility around
*Ptolemy*’s Canon of Kings. He gave an aura of authority that all other
chronological systems must be judged by *Ptolemy*’s opinions or be fit
only for the trash can. This is the way almost all of the world’s
historians look on the matter. *Ptolemy* is the judge—not one other
witness is even allowed. All has been standardized by *Ptolemy*, it is
assumed, for all time to come.

The /Encyclopaedia Britannica/ (11^th ed.) said that *Ptolemy*’s Canon
is *"the only authentic source of history of Assyria and Babylonia
before the recent discoveries at Nineveh"* (article on "Chronology").
Lloyd and Marshall, two of the world’s greatest chronologists, regard
*Ptolemy*’s Canon as "the most precious monument of antiquity."

But why is so much authority given to this second century A.D. document
preserved by an Egyptian astrologer attached to the Chaldean priesthood?
It is because of those /seven *eclipses*/ of the moon! And those
*eclipses*, at first glance, do seem to be a formidable adversary to any
other chronological scheme put forward, even though it may come directly
from the Bible. The reason? Astronomy never lies!

True enough, astronomy is a sure guide if used properly. But look at
*Ptolemy*. He used only seven lunar *eclipses*. Why only seven?
*Ptolemy* should have used many more. The fact is, lunar *eclipses*
occur quite frequently. There were literally hundreds that occurred in
the period *Ptolemy* covered, but he was only able to involve seven?
Look, out of that 400 year period (the time of the Babylonian and
Persian Empires) there were over 600 lunar *eclipses* visible to the
earth. It is true that not all of these could be observed from the
region of Babylon (the only area *Ptolemy* is concerned with). Yet, it
was possible for the Babylonians to witness and to record over 300 of
them. But of all these 300 *eclipses*, *Ptolemy* was able to muster only
/seven/.

This lapse is odd, indeed. In fact, lunar *eclipses* occur in cycles. If
a lunar eclipse is seen at any time, in 54 years and one month, that
same type of eclipse will occur again in virtually the same part of the
sky and with the same amount of the shadow of the earth on the moon. Any
encyclopedia will inform a person that in any ten year period there are
on the average 15 lunar *eclipses* observable from earth. That is a lot
of *eclipses*. (*Ptolemy* only deals with lunar *eclipses* because the
Chaldeans at this early period were unable to predict or to work with
the more complicated solar *eclipses*.)

Astronomers (other than historians) have long complained that *Ptolemy*
gave us only a pittance of *eclipses* when hundreds occurred. They are
very disappointed in him. In fact, in the Journal of the Royal
Astronomical Society, March, 1968, Professor Heather speaking about the
*eclipses* of ancient times:

*"There is no mention of important *eclipses* which one would have
expected to be recorded such as that of 462 B.C. and there are those
which are recorded that have no counterpart theoretically" *

/*p.549*/

In fact, there are all types of *eclipses* that occurred right in
Babylon that *Ptolemy* and others should have recorded—very prominent
ones—that are passed over as though they never occurred, and there are
many, many more *eclipses* mentioned by the classical writers which
don’t fit in with *Ptolemy*’s eclipse chronology at all! What is
interesting is the fact that *Ptolemy* only selected seven *eclipses*
when over 300 were available. And now, thanks to the modern astronomical
research by Dr. Robert R. Newton, he has proved dogmatically that every
one of *Ptolemy*’s *eclipses* was manufactured by *Ptolemy* himself.
Indeed, *Ptolemy* found *eclipses* to fit his astrological scheme of
chronology. See Dr. Newton’s book "/The Origin of *Ptolemy*’s
Astronomical Tables/," The Center for Archaeoastronomy, at the
University of Maryland, published by John Hopkins University, Applied
Physics Laboratory.

Let us be very plain about this matter. The fact is, there are scores of
ancient *eclipses* recorded faithfully by the ancients that can find no
place in the chronological scheme suggested by *Ptolemy*—although his
seven do! But what about the others which are equally authoritative?
Come on folks, we need to do a little homework.

The /Encyclopedia Britannica/ (11^th ed.) has this to say about many
*eclipses* mentioned by the ancients:

*"F. K, Ginzel has collected a great number of passages from
classical authors supposed to refer to *eclipses* of the sun or
moon, but the difficulty of identifying the phenomenon is frequently
such as to justify great doubt as to the conclusions. In a few cases
no *eclipses* corresponding to the description can be found by our
modern tallies to have occurre*d [all the tables are based on
*Ptolemy*]*, and in others the latitude of interpretation and the
uncertainty of the date are so wide that the eclipse cannot be
identified." *

/*vol. 8, p.892*/

If *Ptolemy* were correct—that is, infallible, as suggested by the
modern historians—then all these *eclipses* observed by the ancients
would find a certain place on his table of eclipse cycles. They would
have to fit precisely. However, more often than not, the records do not
agree with *Ptolemy* in a vast majority of cases. It is true that a few
eclipse texts have been found on the cuneiform tablets from Mesopotamia
and some of them seem to fit the Ptolemaic scheme. Or, better than
saying "they fit *Ptolemy*’s scheme," it is proper to say that scholars
have taken the /eclipse records and *forced them to accord with
*Ptolemy**/! This is what has happened in the Assyrian period. A scholar
finds an eclipse tablet in a certain king’s reign. They then lay out
*Ptolemy*’s so-called "standard" eclipse tables in front of them. They
recognize a year, supported by *Ptolemy*’s indications. Then, based on
*Ptolemy* they try to determine when that eclipse should have occurred.
If the eclipse date gets close to that of *Ptolemy*, then they accept it
and they inform the world that the date has become infallibly proved by
astronomy. What nonsense. The true chronological statements of the Holy
Scriptures suffer because of this erroneous procedure. Because of this
method in always trying to prove *Ptolemy* correct, Prof. Mitchell said:

*"As a result of the Babylonian *eclipses*, it has been necessary to
alter the chronology of the Bible by lowering the dates to the
extent of twenty-five years." *

*/*Eclipses* of the Sun/, p.19*

What this means is the fact that God’s truth — his plain chronological
statements in the Bible — must be set aside and brought into subjection
to the more "reliable" astronomical canon supported by *Ptolemy* the
Alexandrian astrologer. The fact is, the world’s historians are wrong in
assuming that the system established by *Ptolemy* is infallibly correct
(as they demand). I have not the slightest doubt that it will soon be
discovered that it is the Bible that can straighten out *Ptolemy* and
all the other Babylonian records. It is NOT *Ptolemy* that should be
used to straighten out the Holy Scriptures. This is the problem in a
nutshell.

The Ancient Eclipse Records

What is the answer to *Ptolemy*’s seven *eclipses*? The conclusion is
plain. The study of *eclipses* shows that there are eclipse cycles. For
example, if there is an eclipse of the moon at a given time, in exactly
223 lunations later (called a Draconic Period in astronomy), another
eclipse of the same type will reoccur. This means that after 18 years
and 10 days the eclipse will happen again (more accurately, it takes
three cycles — 54 years and one month — for the same type of eclipse to
reoccur in the same part of the heavens and near the same time of the
night). This cycle of 18 years and 10 days was known from about the 5^th
century B.C. It was called the Saros.

With the Saros here is what we have. If you find an eclipse record from
ancient times (with all its dimensions clearly laid out), you will have
many *eclipses* to equate it with all separated from one another by a
Saros. Suppose you put it on the wrong Saros? You could be 18 years
out—either too much or too little. If you are two or three Saroses out
(you would still find the eclipse on your tables), you would still be 36
to 54 years out of phase with the actual events of history. Indeed, as I
said above, in three Saros periods, the lunar eclipse will be almost
identical to the former that was 54 years and one month before.

It is especially important to realize these points about the Saroses,
since we now have the modern research of Dr. Robert R. Newton of John
Hopkins University. He has shown that /all /of *Ptolemy's* lunar
*eclipses* that he used to establish the chronology of the
Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods /are all manufactured/ by *Ptolemy*
himself and are not valid for devising a proper history of those times.
*Ptolemy*’s *eclipses* are really quite fictitious. It is now time to
get back to the real study of the actual *eclipses* that occurred in
ancient times (especially in this crucial period of which we are
discussing). When we observe the real astronomical facts, I do not have
the slightest doubt that we can all arrive at a proper chronology for
this period during which many prophecies have their benchmarks.

The sorting out this chronological problem will not be easy. It will
involve the reviewing of all of the historical sources that speak about
these things. In spite of the work that will be involved, I fully
believe that we of modern times (who are just now approaching the End of
the Age) can be instrumental in helping to secure this essential
teaching that will establish the true chronological basis for the Holy
Scriptures. This has NOT YET been done! The project needs to be tackled
as soon as possible. It is just that important.

This is one of the things I hope to do (or at least to contribute in
doing) in my new book on chronology which I want to publish in the
future. In the meantime, one should be very careful in setting
particular dates for the fulfillment of prophecies that are based on
erroneous astronomical observations established by the astrologer
*Ptolemy*. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Bible and its
chronology (which many of us now have a good grasp in understanding),
but it is the chronological falsehoods that have been provided to us by
Claudius *Ptolemy* and the modern theologians who accept him as
infallible that confuse the issue. Let us not begin to "set dates" for
prophetic events until we have solved the chronology of the
Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods.

I personally want to thank all of you who have encouraged me over the
years to get the job done as soon as the time, personnel and resources
become available to complete the work,. The outcome must be accurate so
that all scholars in the world will be able to understand these
important matters that are over-looked today. Modern historians and
theologians need to abandon their apathy to solving this vital subject
and begin to devote their time and effort to resolve it. We at A.S.K.
pray that God will grant us those necessary requirements very soon.

[...]

ASK Home Page <http://www.askelm.com/index.asp> •  Print Page

© 1976-2007 Associates for Scriptural Knowledge - ASK is supported by
freewill contributions