Re: Bishop Ussher

From: Ted Davis <>
Date: Mon Sep 12 2005 - 18:47:18 EDT

The part about how 4004 was calculated is correct. Ussher, following the
medieval Jewish tradition, accepted a period of 4000 years between Adam and
the second Adam. The four year correction, from Scaliger, took into account
that Herod died in 4 BC. To the best of my knowledge, Ussher did introduce
this, and it was based on "state of the art" knowledge of several ancient
chronologies, sacred and secular alike.

Now, Ussher may well have been following others--Martin Rudwick (The
Meaning of Fossils, p. 70) states that he is "commonly though erroneously
credited with the invention of the date 4004 B.C." However as Rudwick also
states, he began his Annals of the Old Covenant from the first origin of the
world (1650) with the creation of the world on the night preceding Sunday,
23 October in the year 710 of the Roman Julian calendar, which is 4004
before the traditional birth year of Christ. Hence, this implies that
Ussher used an existing date and accepted the reasoning/argument leading to


>>> "Hofmann, Jim" <> 9/12/2005 6:06:56 PM
Interesting article:

"A Date to remember: 4004BC", by J.G.C.M. Fuller, in Earth Sciences
History, vol. 24, number 1, 2005, pp. 5-14

Archbishop James Ussher was not the author of the alleged Creation date
4004BC, and it is a clumsy error to say that he was. The date 4004BC
arose from an ancient belief that four thousand years intervened between
Adam's creation and the advent of his Redeemer, the Second Adam. The
incremental four years added to the basic 4000 is a correction applied
to the first Christian calendar, and is unconnected in any way to James
Ussher, or the story of Adam. Dating the year of Creation at 4004BC was
first introduced to English printed Bibles in 1701 by William Lloyd,
scholar, politician and, at that time, Bishop of Worchester.

Jim Hofmann
Received on Mon Sep 12 18:49:51 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Sep 12 2005 - 18:49:51 EDT