A new analysis of chronology

He also consulted Eutychius; the Greek and Latin historians Herodotus, Xenophon, Diodorus Siculus, Ctesias, and Justin; the fragments of Sanchoniatho, Berosus, and Manetho regarding Phoenician, Chaldean, and Egyptian antiquities; and the Hindu records published in the Asiatic Researches.

His first step was to carefully examine the principles upon which the current systems were built to find a solid foundation for a general system. This led him into a detailed investigation of the evidence for and against the longer and shorter calculations of the patriarchal generations from Adam to Abraham. These calculations are found in the Masoretic and Samaritan Hebrew texts, the Greek version, and in Josephus. The result was a conviction that the shorter calculation is indefensible. He discovered it was first fabricated by the Jews around the time of the publication of the Seder Olam Rabba A 2nd-century Hebrew language chronology, their primary chronological system, in 130 AD.

His next attempt was to recover the genuine chronology of Josephus. Many of Josephus's key dates had been corrupted by early editors to make them match the Jewish system, which was unfortunately adopted quite early by several primitive Christian writers. Eventually, through repeated trials among the mass of false dates that currently fill his works, the author found a few genuine ones. These led to the discovery of Josephus's original system. He believes this system is now established by a connected chain of analytical and logical arguments, showing how the general outline matches the specific periods in detail. It also agrees with the system of the first Christian chronologist, Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, in 168 AD, as represented by Abulfaragi, the celebrated Armenian annalist. The corrected era of the Creation, 5411 BC,

provided by both of these sources together, forms the basis of the present system. If its principles are found to be sound and its construction correct, the author trusts it will reconcile Sacred and Profane chronology more satisfactorily than any system previously submitted to scholars.

The usual arrangement of accepted chronological systems also seemed to need improvement. The works of Petavius, Usher, Prideaux, and others display a mixture of Sacred and Profane history, various controversial discussions, and elaborate side-notes. These tend to make their works long-winded and confusing for readers who might wish to focus on one branch of chronology at a time to gain a clear, connected view of Sacred history by itself, or of the various branches of Profane history separately. He has, therefore, treated each branch individually. To simplify the subject even further, he has moved purely controversial matters into an extensive Introduction as much as possible. There, he discusses the current state of chronology, the evidence for and against the shorter Hebrew and longer Greek calculations, the defects of the prevailing systems, and the correction of those of Josephus and Theophilus.

As a necessary preparation for chronological calculation, he has attached to the Introduction the Elements of Technical Chronology. This explains the usual measurements of time—days, weeks, months, years, etc.—used by different nations. It also includes a more accurate standard for reigns and generations based on extensive observation of their average lengths; the primary eclipses mentioned in history that occurred before the destruction of Jerusalem; and the leading epochs, eras, and periods used in Sacred and Profane chronology, along with the principles by which they are adjusted. Finally, it includes a new translation and correction of the Chronicle