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.


Popular posts from this blog


A cheap, easy high.  Just watch your step. In the late 1960s, recreational drugs were becoming more popular than ever in the United States.  They were promoted and celebrated by the counterculture.  Marijuana and cocaine were widely used, as were hallucinogens like psilocybin and LSD.  Most of these drugs were processed plants and/or chemicals, but marijuana was pretty much rolled and smoked in its natural form.  Its only processing was drying it out, just like tobacco.  40% of Americans smoked tobacco, and it was perfectly harmless (except for increased risk of lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease, etc.)  “How can you ban a plant?” defenders of marijuana asked.  “It’s a dangerous, addictive plant!” its detractors replied. Defenders of marijuana wanted to move the fight to their territory: you can’t ban a plant.  That’s why the discovery of bananadine was so important.  It, too, came from a plant.  It was a hallucinogen, like the synthetic LSD.  Bananadine was found

Kick the Football, Charlie Brown

What's the lesson here? For nearly the entire run of Charles Schulz's Peanuts  comic strip, one running gag has been the football gag.  The gag is simple: Lucy Van Pelt kneels down on the grass, holding a football in place, and tells Charlie Brown to kick it.  Charlie Brown gets a good running start, ready to give it a good, solid kick, but at the last minute, Lucy pulls it away.  The final panel usually has a miserable Charlie Brown laying on the ground while Lucy looks over him, holding the football, telling him in one way or another that he obviously shouldn't have trusted her. The gag first appeared on November 14, 1951, when the strip was just over a year old.  In the first occurrence, the football was not held by Lucy but by Violet Gray, another little girl in Charlie Brown’s neighborhood.  (Violet would later become a minor character in the strip, and Lucy would become a major one.   Lucy wouldn’t appear in the strip until the following year.)  The f

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