Changes

The ''Annals'' are, of necessity, a secondary source. Such a source is only as reliable as are its primaries. Given that, Ussher is in remarkable agreement--usually exactly or within one or two years--with most modern historians in their treatment of Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greco-Macedonian, and Roman history. Indeed, Ussher places the destruction of the Temple by [[Nebuchadnezzar II]] of Babylon at 588 BC, very close to the 586 BC date that most modern archaeologists have assigned to this event.

The ''Annals'' are, of necessity, a secondary source. Such a source is only as reliable as are its primaries. Given that, Ussher is in remarkable agreement--usually exactly or within one or two years--with most modern historians in their treatment of Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greco-Macedonian, and Roman history. Indeed, Ussher places the destruction of the Temple by [[Nebuchadnezzar II]] of Babylon at 588 BC, very close to the 586 BC date that most modern archaeologists have assigned to this event.

He calculates the date of [[Creation]] as October 23, 4004 BC. This date derives from two key assumptions: that [[Abraham]] was born when his father [[Terah]] was 130 years of age rather than seventy, and that the Sojourn in Egypt began with the Abrahamic Covenant and not with the entry of [[Jacob]] into Egypt. Neither assumption is incontrovertible. The sharpest controversy, however, developed with [[Edwin R. Thiele]]'s dissertation on the chronology of the Divided Kingdoms. This [[Biblical chronology dispute]] goes to the heart of any assessment of reliability, for it turns on whether one accepts Scripture as primary, or will allow secular evidence--sometimes of questionable reliability itself--to trump Scripture.

He calculates the date of [[Creation]] as [[October 23]], [[4004 BC]]. This date derives from two key assumptions: that [[Abraham]] was born when his father [[Terah]] was 130 years of age rather than seventy, and that the Sojourn in Egypt began with the Abrahamic Covenant and not with the entry of [[Jacob]] into Egypt. Neither assumption is incontrovertible. The sharpest controversy, however, developed with [[Edwin R. Thiele]]'s dissertation on the chronology of the Divided Kingdoms. This [[Biblical chronology dispute]] goes to the heart of any assessment of reliability, for it turns on whether one accepts Scripture as primary, or will allow secular evidence--sometimes of questionable reliability itself--to trump Scripture.

His arbitrary rejection of half of Manetho's king lists results from his repetition of Manetho's original error--assuming that the kings of Egypt, as listed, all ruled consecutively. Furthermore, he probably never realized that the ancient kings of Egypt routinely re-wrote the histories of their predecessors in a manner in which [[George Orwell]] would later predict that future governments would behave. The correction of the historical record of Egypt would be left to modern archaeologists.

His arbitrary rejection of half of Manetho's king lists results from his repetition of Manetho's original error--assuming that the kings of Egypt, as listed, all ruled consecutively. Furthermore, he probably never realized that the ancient kings of Egypt routinely re-wrote the histories of their predecessors in a manner in which [[George Orwell]] would later predict that future governments would behave. The correction of the historical record of Egypt would be left to modern archaeologists.