# Chronologies and Calendars/Chapter 4

HAVING now got abreast of the practical chronology of Christendom, it will be convenient to direct my readers to the eras which have been assigned to the creation of the world, The figures, as will be seen, exhibit nothing but a series of disenchanting disparities. For instance we have
* I. 7388 B.C. according to the modern Grecians.
* II. 7382 B.C.„ according to„ Josephus.
* III. 5829 B.C.„ according to„ Scaliger.
* IV. 5508 B.C.„ according to„ the ancient Greeks,
* V. 5499 B.C.„ according to„ Sextus Africanus.
* VI. 5411 B.C.„ according to„ Hates.
* VII. 4968 B.C.„ according to„ L’art de vérifier les dates.
* VIII. 4905 B.C.„ according to„ Nennius’ Historia.
* IX. 4004 B.C.„ according to„ the Bible margins from Usher.
* X. 3970 B.C.„ according to„ Sir John Skene.
* XI. 3760 B.C.„ according to„ the present day Jews.
31. That the various eras could be more successfully investigated were there one standard for the computations is quite plain. Certainly if the age of the earth, as regards the origin of species, could be agreed on, it would act as a chronological trunk whence could branch the eras and ​calendars of all nations. This would secure an exactness for which chronlogers and historians have been searching. The world's age is, however, only a subject for scientific disagreements. To the masters in such quests the planet, with feminine-like reluctance, refuses to reveal the secret, and so end the wordy warfare.
32. When (to quote from Lord Salisbury's Presidential address to the British Association in 1894) one scientist, Lord Kelvin, has 'limited the period of organic life upon the earth to one hundred million years, and Professor Tait, in a still more penurious spirit, cut that hundred down to ten,' who then, we ask, can hope to strike the golden mean between an æonian and the actuarial age of our planet? 'On the other side of the account,' the president proceeded, perhaps sarcastically, 'stand the claims of the geologists and biologists. They have revelled in the prodigality of the ciphers which they put at the end of the earth's hypothetical age. Long cribbed and cabined within the narrow bounds of popular chronology, they have exulted wantonly in their new freedom.' Thus we see that certain figures are given by one scientist, only to be questioned and subverted by a professional brother. The birth-year of a whale and the age of the Californian giant trees are computable to comparative exactitude, but it seems practically impossible to link botanical facts, geological ideas, and astronomical figures into some united chronology regarding the earth's age. We consequently must deal with chronology measurable by some "ascertained order or succession of events," which Argyle defines as 'Time-relative.'
​33. Another authority scornfully says, 'Modern ingenious theorisers in development, who would have men recognise in the reptiles of their museums the remote ancestors of their race, consistently believe that they find in the savage a type of the primeval state of man.' And half a century ago Hugh Miller wrote, 'The six thousand years of human history forms but a portion of the geologic day that is passing over us. They do not extend into the yesterday of the globe, far less touch the myriads of ages spread out beyond.' And he added, prophetically one may say, for it has come to pass, 'What I believe now all theologians, even the weakest, will be content to believe 50 years hence.' In section 48 I deal with the term 'Age' in detail.
34. But the chronologist, dealing with historic facts, must neglect those cipher-laden totals which represent the evolutionist's anno mundi in the closing decade of the nineteenth century. Contrasting these later views with those at the end of last century, a well-known authority, Mr. A. C. White, says that 'until the beginning of the present century theories of the earth were of the most fantastic and speculative nature. Imaginary and supernatural agencies, extraordinary and alarming catastrophies, were freely called upon to explain phenomena which could not be rationally elucidated without violating the fixed belief in the literal interpretation of Scriptural accounts of the Creation and the Flood. The pages of romance do not contain more whimsical notions than do the writings of the pioneers of geology. Glimmers of truth now and then appeared in these early works, but not until Hutton published his ​"Theory of the Earth" one hundred years ago, did these feeble glows rise into a steady light. This admirable book, aided by the publications of Playfair, the talented exponent of Hutton's views, effectually combated the catastrophic theories of its predecessors, and placed the study of geological changes on a scientific basis. Observation took the place of speculation, and the authority of fact that of tradition, but not without a long and severe struggle. Philosophers, however much impressed by the value of geological facts and deductions, were loath to give up old and cherished ideas. They clung to their traditional faith in spite of the eloquent illustrations of Playfair and the philosophical reasoning of Lyell. The name of geologist was, in the minds of many people fifty years ago, suggestive of atheistical tendencies, and such a subject as the age of the earth could not at that time be discussed without suspicion of irreverence. At the present day, however, it is one of the open questions of science, and has been freely debated by philosophers of high standing in various branches of study. The geologist, the physicist, and the astronomer have all applied their knowledge and means of investigation to the solution of this difficult problem, and their labours have had considerable effect in advancing the state of knowledge and thought in all their sciences.' And very recently Dr. John Struthers said, 'If the mode of "creation" by descent applies to forms below man, as the evidence goes, it applies no less to the origin of human species. This disposes of the Adam and Eve tradition, and all that hangs by it.'
35. Before quitting this portion of the subject, it is ​interesting to find out how the date of the Flood is given various chronologers. According to Usher, the Deluge occurred in B.C. 2348. But fourteen other authorities the cataclysm as follows:—
| One | (the LXX.) puts it in the | 32nd | century B.C. |
| Five | (the LXX.) put„ s it„ | 31st | century B.„ |
| One | (the LXX.) put„ s it„ | 29th | century B.„ |
| One | (the LXX.) put„ s it„ | 26th | century B.„ |
| Four | (the LXX.) put„ s it„ | 23rd | century B.„ |
| Two | (the LXX.) put„ s it„ | 22nd | century B.„ |
On such chronologic evidence, I fear an impartial jury would bring in a verdict of 'Not Proven,' as regards the time, though a majority would admit the occurrence, of a Deluge.
* ↑ See Brewer, p. 424.
* ↑ Reg. Mag., p. 1, 'Malcolmus 2, filius Kennethi, coepit regnare Anno Mundi 4974, Christi 1004.’
* ↑ Brit. Assn., p. 12.
* ↑ Hamilton, p. 2.
* ↑ Schools and Schoolmasters, p. 223.
* ↑ Scotsman, 4th Aug., 1896.
* ↑ Encycl. Metrop., vide chronology.
* ↑ The sudden uprising (from volcanic causes} of the Andes is one scientific explanation of a Flood. This is the opinion held by scientists such as Pouchet.