1. D. M. Luther's Chronicles or Calculation of Yours of the World. *)
First edition 1541; improved 1545.
Saying of those who were said to be disciples of the Prophet Elijah:
(Burgensis in the first part, Distinctio 3, Cap. 4 Scrutinii.)
The world will stand for six thousand years.
Two thousand empty.
Two thousand the law.
Two thousand the Messiah.
These are the six days of the week before God.
The seventh day is the eternal Sabbath.
Ps. 90, 4. and 2 Petr. 3, 8.:
A thousand years are like one day.
*Already earlier, about 1525, Luther had prepared a chronological table about the Median-Persian kings for use in the interpretation of the minor prophets and had it printed, probably only for his audience. He says this himself in the preface to the interpretation of the prophet Haggai according to the Altenburg as well as the Zwickau Relation, and also in the interpretation of Zechariah the same table is mentioned again in the aforementioned manuscripts. This is not to be confused with our present writing (compare our first annotation on Haggai in this volume), which was only completed in 1540 and printed in 1541. After that, Luther published it again, several times changed, in 1545 (Köstlin, Mart. Luther [31, Vol. II, 599). Originally, Luther had made this chronicon only for his own use, but had not thought of publishing it. However, his friends, whom he had allowed to see his work, asked him to omit it by printing it. Still on March 3, 1541, v. Justus Jonas had it "written out by a magistrum who presides over it", and sent the copy to Prince Joachim of Anhalt (Kolde, Analecta, p. 375), The original is in the royal library in Dresden. The Latin title is Supputatio annorum mundi. The Jena edition has given it the date 1541, but has placed it among the writings of 1545, with the marginal note that the first edition was done in 1541, and the improved edition went out in 1545. In Latin it is found in the Wittenberg edition (1558), tom. VII, toi. 555 and in the Jena (1570), tom. IV, toi. 673 b; German according to the translation made by Aurifaber in 1550 in the Wittenberg (1559), Bo. XII, p. 400 under the title: "Chronica des Ehrnwirdigen Herrn D. Mart. Luth. with an appendix of the following years. Anno 1541." Thereafter in the Altenburg edition, vol. VIII, p. 733; in the Leipzig edition, vol. XXII, appendix, p. I and in Walch. In all German editions, the Chronikon is continued until the year 1559 and is preceded by a preface by Aurifaber. We omit this and other additions by Aurifaber, and translate anew according to the Wittenberg edition. The Jena edition is only a reprint of the same.
[Preface.]
Martin Luther.
This calculation of the years I had made only for my use, not that it should be a chronicle or history book, but that I should have it as it were a table before my eyes to look up the times and years of the histories that are told in the holy scriptures, if I wanted to remember how many years the patriarchs, judges, kings, princes had lived or reigned, or in how great a period they had followed one another. Therefore, there is no reason for me to either praise or belittle them with many words. For I have not had my eye on what use it would be to others or how much, especially since so many chronicles or histories exist and increase daily. I am satisfied with the benefit that I have obtained in the calculation. Those who wanted to have it published, since I gave them the opportunity to see it at their request, or those who will read it, may see that they will do something worth the effort if they read it. I really do not care whether it perishes or remains, but I also do not care much whether it does others a satisfaction or not.
Of course, the Chronicon of Canon and Philip 1) is the first and a very good example of calculation, in which the whole course of the years is very beautifully divided into six millennia, in which I also followed. One thing I have been guilty of in the history of Joram, king of Judah, under Elijah and Elisha, in which I have counted twenty years more than all other chroniclers have. This shall be my fault or my diligence; in its place it shall be accounted for. For the chronicle of Eusebius, which is taken from the seventy interpreters, who in the first book of Moses Cap. 5 (as Jerome tells in the "Hebrew Questions") always translated two hundred instead of a hundred (perhaps because they took the singular Meath for the plural Meoth).
1) Chronicon Charionis Philippicum. In 1532, the mathematician Carion published a chronicon to which Melanchthon had contributed significantly.
(I am silent about the others), has brought into all chronicles before our time this error, that they have 1249 years too much. Yes, they have exceeded the sixth millennium, which they call the sixth age, and count the just mentioned years in the seventh millennium, which they call the seventh age. 2) But about Eusebius is more wavy to complain, who was indeed, as Jerome writes, an admirable and very careful man; about all other historians we complain, and they themselves complain among themselves, that they had for the exact calculation of the years no all-stop. Therefore, I have set them aside, and in this work I want to take this calculation of the years mainly from the holy scriptures, on which we can and should base ourselves certainly and reliably. But the scripture has it in such a way, as follows:
Sections for calculating the years from the creation of the world:
1656 except for the Flood. Gen. 5.
367 until the calling of Abraham. Gen. 11 and 12.
430 except for the Exodus from Egypt.
Ex 12, Gal 3.
480 until the temple of Solomon. 1 Kings 6. 158 until the end of Solomon's tribe. 2 Kings 11 and 2 Chron. 23.
291 to the path of the Yekhanyah.
2 Kings 243 ) to the end.
11 [the reign) of Zidekiah. 2 Kings 24. 70 years of the desolation of Jerusalem.
2 Chron. 36. Ezra 1.
46 until the beginning of the weeks in the second year of Darius. Joh. 2, 20.
483 years or 69 weeks until the death and resurrection of Christ. Dan. 9.
7 years of the last week, in which the covenant is strengthened and the law is fulfilled in the middle of the week. Dan. 9.
The following years of Christ are clear in themselves.
2) Luther assumed in 1540 that this was the year 5500 of the world, while those had already arrived at the year 6749 of the world.
3) In our template: 4 ksZ. 12.
Different also in this way: 1656 until the flood. Gen. 5.
292 until the birth of Abraham. Gen. 11. 425 until the birth of Moses.
80 except for the Exodus from Egypt. 480 until the temple of Solomon.
158 until King Jehoash and the end of Solomon's tribe.
291 to On the Way of the Jechaniah.
11 years of Zidekia's to devastation.
70 years of devastation except for Cyrus.
46 years until the second year of Darius, that is the beginning of the weeks.
483 years or 69 weeks until Christ's death. 7 years of the last week.
About all these parts of the calculation I have no doubt at all. Therefore, also the sum cannot be questioned, except in one piece, which goes from the end of the desolation to the beginning of the weeks, or from Cyrus to the second year of Darius, about which I want to say a ripple, which moves me.
Joh. 2, 20. The Jews say to Christ: "This temple was built in forty-six years, and you want to erect it in three days? By this word it is quite certain that more than forty-six years elapsed between the first year of Darius and Cyrus and the completion of the temple. For it is clear from the seventh chapter of Ezra [Ezra 6:15] that the temple was completed, not in the second year of Darius or the forty-sixth after Cyrus, when the word of God went out through Haggai and Zechariah at the beginning of the weeks, but in the sixth year of the intestines. Thus, four years are added to the forty-six years mentioned, and there are full fifty years full of Cyrus until the completion of the temple. Only this circumstance causes a question because of the four years, should everything be sure and certain. This question arises because of the uncertainty of the years of the Persian kings. Because the historians deviate fully from each other, not only in the years of Cyrus, but also of Darius and others.
I want to hand over my thoughts about these four years to the public; whoever wants to or can, may suggest and judge better. Daniel lets in the 5th and 6th chapter
Darilis the Mede and Cyrus the Persian, each ruling separately, since he says [Dan. 5:31] that Darius the Mede succeeded Belfazer in ruling over the Chaldeans, and does not add Cyrus. Likewise, as he says [Dan. 6, 28.], "Daniel was mighty in the kingdom of Darius, and also in the kingdom of Cyrus the Persian." Not as if it were therefore false that Cyrus reigned at the same time as Darius, as is the way of Scripture when it is read that the sons reigned with the fathers, but that a distinction must be made between the reign of Cyrus with Darius and the reign of Cyrus alone. I say this because it seems necessary to understand the first year of Cyrus (2 Chron. 36 [v. 22] and Ezra 1 [v. 1]) as the first year when Cyrus ruled alone and after Darius. Thus two years are taken away from these four years, which are zll much, and only two years remain in question, which I would like to take away so:
Since in great kingdoms and dominions, especially when they are new, what one intends to do proceeds slowly and with great hindrance before it is set in motion, it could happen that the commandment of Cyrus has hardly gone out at the end of his first year, so that one year has passed over it. After that, it seems necessary to give at least one year for the preparation of the Jews, in which they prepared for the return after the command was given, rather for the occupation of Jerusalem, so that it can be said that it went well and they hurried very much, because they started to build at the end of the second year or in the third year of Cyrus. So the remaining two years are lost and the text Joh. 2, that the temple was built in forty-six years, will stand firm. I know, of course, what I myself could say against it, but I do not care much.
But whoever wants can include these two years of Darius Medus in the seventy years of desolation, but I will rather count them after the seventy years. For after Belshazzar was slain, and his kingdom was transferred to Darius the Mede, the Jews were already liberated in the matter, and the
The prophecies of Jeremiah were fulfilled. Therefore, during these two years, the Jewish people, who had already been liberated everywhere, were worked on and dealt with to send them back to their land as well, with Daniel struggling valiantly with his own.
But those who do not like this may offer something better, or demand everything in the strongest terms: we will say it is a small thing, if the whole calculation is certain, and only in two or four years a doubt remains. For if everything is right until the end of the world, except for two or four years, the faith and the church are not in great danger thereby; we can with a good conscience in so great a matter, that is, in the course of the whole world, leave four years unnoticed.
Only of this I want to remind him who lets himself be reminded that I firmly and unshakably hold to the opinion that the beginning of the weeks is to be set at no other place than in the second year of Darius Longimanus, so that he knows that he makes himself vain trouble who intends to dispute or argue with me about this matter. Yes, I have (as I said) made this calculation for myself alone, and I am ready to bear it with the greatest equanimity if someone else wants to work out another one for himself or for others. I base myself alone on
the holy scripture. Therefore, I am also forced to reject Philo, although reluctantly, who puts eighteen years too much in one place within the weeks of Daniel. And I do not care much where Alexander, Antiochus Epiphanes, the Maccabees and others are placed, although I place them, but I am not very concerned whether I place them in the right place or not, since only in the meantime the years of the weeks keep their course unharmed and quite certainly.
Thus I am also forced to deviate from Metasthenes by twelve years. For if Metasthene's calculation and the numbers of the Assyrian kings should be correct, then it would necessarily follow that Sanherib would have come to Jerusalem in the second year of Hezekiah, which is impossible. For in the sixth year of Hezekiah, Shalmanasser leads all Israel away to Assyria, 2 Kings 17, and it was not until the fourteenth year of Hezekiah that Sanherib came to Jerusalem, 2 Kings 18. This matter has caused me, while not entirely despising the historians, to prefer the sacred Scriptures to them. I use them in such a way that I am not forced to contradict the Scriptures. For I believe that in the Scriptures the true God speaks, but in the histories good people show their diligence and faithfulness (but as men) according to their ability, or at least that the copyists could have erred.