Skip to main content

The World Since 4004 BC

NPG D26756; James Ussher - Portrait - National Portrait Gallery
Archbishop James Ussher, the man who calculated the Biblical age of the earth.

We often hear religious Christians claim that the world is 6,000 years old (or 6,024 years old, plus six or seven weeks, to be exact).  I won’t weigh in on the veracity of that claim, but it does raise an interesting question: where do they get that number?  The Bible provides exactly zero dates, so how can anyone claim to figure it out?

The first man who claims to have figured it out was James Ussher, the Protestant Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland in the middle of the 17th century.  A scholar and influential churchman, Ussher studied the Bible and concluded that the famous creation of the world, in the Book of Genesis, must have taken place on October 22, 4004 BC, at around 6:00 PM, local time, according to the Julian calendar.

It seems arbitrary, doesn’t it?  But Ussher didn’t just throw a dart at a calendar.  It was based on a literal reading of the Old Testament, and incorporated a broad knowledge of ancient history and Biblical languages.  He gave his treatise the catchy title Annales Veteris Testamenti, a prima mundi origine deducti, una cum rerum Asiaticarum et Aegyptiacarum chronico, a temporis historici principio usque ad Maccabaicorum initia producto.  (In case your command of Latin isn’t quite up to snuff, that translates as Annals of the Old Testament, deduced from the first origins of the world, the chronicle of Asiatic and Egyptian matters together produced from the beginning of historical time up to the beginnings of Maccabees.  (That’s still not very catchy, is it?))

Since the Bible doesn’t provide dates, Ussher had to work things out somehow.  The first part is the easiest.  From the creation of Adam to the death of Solomon, the Bible provides exact ages for all persons who appear in the book.  So, using these figures, the early part of the book is easily sorted out: it’s just a matter of addition.  Most versions of the Bible agree on how old these persons are, too—but not all.  From one version to another, the difference in ages of the lineage from Adam to Solomon could vary by about 1,500 years.  Ussher decided to deal with this by going right to the original source, and culled his information from a Hebrew Bible.  That covered about the first 3,100 years of the Biblical world, since Solomon’s death occurred in 930 BC.  The Bible doesn’t say this, of course, but since there is actual historical record of Solomon’s existence (as opposed to Adam and Noah and Methuselah and others from the Bible), that provided a nice, firm date to work with.

The lineage of Hebrews after Solomon isn’t recorded as well, so this is where other sources were called for.  The Biblical records of kings after Solomon is incomplete, which required some cross-referencing with historical records.  Ussher, being a religious man, favored the Bible when there were ambiguities, and there was enough scholarship of the ancient world by Ussher’s day to provide him with plenty of information to fill in the gaps.  This process filled in a few more centuries.

From about 500 BCE onward, the Bible names no kings at all.  It does mention some historical events, so Ussher had to rely on those in order to fill in the gaps.  Ussher figured that the birth of Jesus occurred at around 5 BC, due to a math error by 6th-century AD monk Dionysius Exiguus that had been well established by this time.  Ussher figured 5 BC made sense, because the Gospel of Matthew says that King Herod the Great was alive at the time of the birth of Jesus, and established records state that Herod died in 4 BC, so Jesus had to have been born, well, Before Christ, so to speak.  To complicate things, the Gospel of Luke says that Jesus was born when Quirinius was governor of the province of Syria, and records show that Quirinius took office ten years after Herod’s death!  As to this inconsistency, Ussher says… nothing.  You have to draw the line somewhere, right?

Ussher figured the world was created in the fall because that would have put it in line with the Jewish new year.  According to the Julian calendar, Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC, would have been the first full day of Earth’s existence, when light was created, according to Genesis 1:1.  The light would have followed the previous evening, on October 22, starting around 6:00 PM.  October 23 was the autumnal equinox that year, according to the Julian calendar.  The Gregorian calendar was in use by this time, but it wouldn’t be adopted in Ireland until about a century after Ussher’s death.

Ussher’s chronology started to fall out of favor in the 19th century, even among serious theologians.  Modern Christians don’t put much emphasis on nailing down the exact dates of the Biblical chronology.  Even many “young Earth” Christians hold that the world is thousands of years old, as opposed to how scientists agree that it’s billions of years old, but even they don’t think of the world as having an exact age.  Ussher’s scholarship remains admired today, though his conclusions endure a certain amount of mockery.  In Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman’s comic fantasy novel Good Omens, Ussher gets a mention in the form of a kind of dis, where he is said to be “off by a quarter of an hour”.  Pratchett and Gaiman don’t say whether he was a quarter hour over, or a quarter hour short.  With the passing of Mr. Pratchett in 2016, we may never know.


Unknown said…
You state “ ‘Scientists .. ’” as a statement that all scientists believe the same thing regarding how the world came about. Not true ! There are a great many scientists, mathematicians, geologists, microbiologists that believe differently. You lump ‘all’ scientists as believing the opposite of the work came about ,as if no scientist believe in a God creation. This is a great deception. You might benefit from studying both sides of science today. By the way there is nothing that one couldn't say about the world and how it came about that God couldn't have done it that way. This would be a interesting topic for many to learn about. J. Rivera

Popular posts from this blog

How the Lemon was Invented

Lemons How do you make a lemon?  Silly question, isn’t it?  You just take the seeds out of one and plant them, and wait for the tree to come up, right?  That’s true, but it hasn’t always been that easy.  Lemons today are a widely cultivated citrus fruit, with a flavor used in cuisines of countries where no lemon tree would ever grow.  You might think that it was just a matter of ancient peoples finding the trees, enjoying their fruit and growing more of them, but that’s not true.  The lemon is a human invention that’s maybe only a few thousand years old. The first lemons came from East Asia, possibly southern China or Burma.  (These days, some prefer to refer to Burma as Myanmar .  I’ll try to stay out of that controversy here and stick to fruit.)  The exact date of the lemon’s first cultivation is not known, but scientists figure it’s been around for more than 4,000 years.  The lemon is a cross breed of several fruits.  One fruit is the bitter orange, best known in the west for

Origins of the Word Hoser, eh?

Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas as cultural icons Bob and Doug McKenzie These days we often hear Canadians referred to as “Hosers”.  It’s a strange word, and it sounds a little insulting, but it’s sometimes used more with affection than malice.  Any such word is difficult to use correctly, especially if you don’t belong to the group the word describes.   I can’t say I feel comfortable throwing the word around, myself, but I can offer a little information about it that might shed some light on what it means. First off: is it an insult?  Yes… and no.   The word hoser can be used as an insult or as a term of endearment; the variation hosehead , is certainly an insult.  It’s a mild insult, meaning something like jerk or idiot or loser .  Its origin is unclear, and there are several debatable etymologies of the word.  One claims that it comes from the days before the zamboni was invented, when the losing team of an outdoor ice hockey game would have to hose down the rink in or

The Whoopie Cap

What can you do with your father’s old hats?  If you were born after, say, 1955, the answer is probably “Not much.”  Men were still wearing fedoras in the 1970s and 1980s, but by 1990, fashion had turned to the point where unless you were Indiana Jones, the hat didn’t look right.  Some blame Jack Kennedy for starting it all, strutting around perfectly coiffed and bare-headed in the early 1960s.  In 1953, Harry Truman, a haberdasher by trade, stepped out of office, and just eight years later we had a president who didn’t care for hats?  The times, they were a-changin’. If you set the WABAC machine to the 1920s or 1930s (when Indiana Jones was supposed to have lived), you would see the fedora was still very much in style.  Men just didn’t leave the house without a hat of some kind, and for what remained of the middle class, the fedora was the topper of choice.  But like any other piece of clothing, hats wear out, too.  When that happened, you’d just throw it away.  Though if there were