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. A recent article published in "Bible and Spade" shows several places where Ussher’s chronology contradicts quite plain Scriptural texts at several places, as well as contradicting well-established secular dates, whereas the chronology of Edwin Thiele, especially as slightly modified by Leslie McFall and other later writers in the Thiele tradition, gives both a better agreement with specific Scriptural texts and with firmly established dates from the Ancient Near East.<ref>Rodger C. Young, “Ussher Explained and Corrected,” ''Bible and Spade'' 31.2 (2018), 47–58.[http://www.rcyoung.org/articles/ussher.html]</ref>

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.

That aside, his reckoning of the kings of the Divided Kingdom is as reliable as any other reckoning that anyone else has attempted. His calculations of the dates of the [[Crucifixion]] and [[Resurrection]] of [[Jesus Christ]] show the same exacting attention to detail that inform the rest of the Annals. Most importantly, Ussher laid a remarkably solid foundation for historical research, one that has held up remarkably well for nearly four centuries. If, therefore, the ''Annals'' suffers from reliability problems, then they result almost entirely with problems with the secular or "profane" sources that Ussher had available to him, and less often from a questionable interpretation of Scripture.

That aside, his reckoning of the kings of the Divided Kingdom Kingdom has needed various corrections because of its conflict with the biblical text in a few places, as well as its conflict with well-established dates in Assyrian history such as the tribute of Menahem to Tiglath-Pileser III. For the latter synchronism, Edwin Thiele was much criticized because his chronology did not agree with the traditional date for the tribute, but the finding of the Iran Stela showed that Thiele’s chronology in this matter, as derived from the Bible, was correct, while Ussher’s chronology in this matter contradicts both the Bible and the Assyrian data.<ref>Young, “Ussher Explained and Corrected,” 50–51 and 57 (picture caption).</ref>

 

His calculations of the dates of the [[Crucifixion]] and [[Resurrection]] of [[Jesus Christ]] show the same exacting attention to detail that inform the rest of the Annals. Most importantly, Ussher laid a remarkably solid foundation for historical research, one that has held up remarkably well for nearly four centuries. If, therefore, the ''Annals'' suffers from reliability problems, then they result almost entirely with problems with the secular or "profane" sources that Ussher had available to him, and less often from a questionable interpretation of Scripture.

===Completeness===

===Completeness===

===Conclusion===

===Conclusion===

''The Annals of the World'' is one of the most comprehensive textbooks of ancient history available, and one whose dates have held up at least as well as have those of other historians. It would make a valuable addition to any school or home-schooler's library, for its comprehensive treatment of ancient history alone. And even if Ussher's reckoning of the Exodus and other key dates in Judeo-Christian history are misplaced, this work is invaluable in showing how Ussher assigned those dates to begin with, and what assumptions he made.

''The Annals of the World'' is one of the most comprehensive textbooks of ancient history available, although its chronology, particularly of the kingdom period, has needed modification to be in more exact agreement with specific biblical texts, texts that agree with confirmed secular dates from the Ancient Near East. It would make a valuable addition to any school or home-schooler's library, for its comprehensive treatment of ancient history alone. And even if Ussher's reckoning of the Exodus and other key dates in Judeo-Christian history are misplaced, this work is invaluable in showing how Ussher assigned those dates to begin with, and what assumptions he made.

== External Reviews ==

== External Reviews ==

*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/archbishop.asp Archbishop's Achievement] by [[Jonathan Sarfati]]. Creation 26(1):24–27, December 2003

*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/archbishop.asp Archbishop's Achievement] by [[Jonathan Sarfati]]. Creation 26(1):24–27, December 2003

*[http://www.pocketpcreviews.net/content/view/55/67/ Review of the ''Annals''] at PocketPCReviews.net

*[http://www.pocketpcreviews.net/content/view/55/67/ Review of the ''Annals''] at PocketPCReviews.net

== References ==

== References ==