Martin Anstey: A Personal Perspective

It has been 100 years since Martin Anstey published his Biblical chronological research called The Romance of Bible Chronology in 1913. In spite of the title, which seems a little whimsical, it was meant to be ta en as a serious effort to understand Biblical chronology from beginning to end. Anstey would be followed by many imitators especially !hilip Mauro, "he Wonders of Bible Chronology 1933. Another similar attempt to pro#e biblical chronology is that of $. %. &aulstich in his 'istory and 'armony series. (uriously he does not mention Martin Anstey in his te)t and inde) in Exile and Return 19**, at least as far as I can determine after se#eral attempts, and yet his results appear partially deri#ati#e. By this I do not mean to suggest some sort of plagiarism as it is possible to arri#e at similar results especially when you begin with a similar mindset. &inally, I also attempted to understand the chronology of $+ra ,ehemiah, in a than fully limited run monograph, History and Prophecy 19*9 in which I did ac nowledge and attempt to update Anstey. "he internet age has created a self perpetuating spate of publications that either thinly de#elop small aspects of Anstey-s more original research or they #enture off into a ne#er ne#er land of completely irrational and un.ustified identifications to shore up pretty much any random idea. A recent internet pdf by Bruno /olberg, Redating the Hebrew Kings 2010 continues the theme of biblical chronology by combining both Anstey and &aulstich to buttress his points. Belonging to this larger group is &loyd ,olen 0ones, The Chronology of the Old Testament: Return to Basics 1011 2with 19 pre#ious editions3. 4ome of his Assyriological criticisms date bac to the 19 th century often ignoring or e#en unaware of more recent wor . Many of these attempts are really .ust thinly disguised 5" chronologies and often based on blind faith in the 5" te)t 2almost always the M" and not, the at times significantly di#ergent, 4eptuagint te)t and chronology3. But while these shortcomings may not bother most true belie#ers, the greatest problem with many such self6made studies is a lac of any self criticism or critical .udgment beyond selecti#ely choosing sources and opinions that pro#e what you want to belie#e. ,ow I will admit to a certain amount of attraction to such simpler perspecti#es, especially in my early attempts at understanding Biblical issues, as they pro#ide the illusion of sol#ing long6standing problems with Biblical chronology. "his was certainly my appeal for Anstey as it seemed simple and self6e#ident. But such literal approaches do not sol#e all, or e#en most, of the problems they claim. In fact they as often as not create new ones7 5n page 138 Anstey outlines three basic principles for reconstructing chronology9 13 ne#er adopt any date inconsistent with another 13 do not adopt a hypothesis or con.ecture without positi#e e#idence and 33 :ne#er identify different persons bearing the same name, and ne#er fail to identify the same person bearing different names.; "his last point is <uite interesting and one reason why Anstey and others, including myself, spend some time on identifications of the people in the te)t as a means de#eloping their chronology. Indeed, e#en an e)ceptional scholar such as =iana $delman, in Origins of the !econd Temple 100> who is not to be lin ed with any religious fundamentalist perspecti#es such as those abo#e, spends a lengthy chapter on genealogy in her determination to define the number of generations in#ol#ed in the second temple period. I also de#oted a considerable amount of time and space to de#elop the !ost6$)ilic genealogy as a chronological tool but without anything li e her mastery of the e#idence. In retrospect the problem with such approaches is more ob#ious to me now. ?enealogies and lists are the most li ely to be manipulated for chronological and ideological reasons. "hus spending an inordinate amount of time to reconcile and e#en :correct; them is misdirected. "hey can at best only pro#ide some indication of what time periods the writer@editor wanted us to belie#e the e#ents happened. "hey represent forms of ideological or telescoped time and

not necessarily real historical time. !erhaps sometimes those different Atimes- o#erlap but it is #ery difficult, if at all, possible to pro#e. "he most significant problem with such parochial and scholarly reconstructions are the many indications of the ordering power of the contemporary minds behind the reconstructions. 5f the abo#e authors $delman most clearly understands the pro#isional nature of all reconstructions and their limited bite on the past. Bnfortunately many of these parochial perspecti#es seem far too in#ested in their own mental creations 2their deference to the Biblical te)t notwithstanding3. Assuming that your :map is the territory; ine#itably leads to distortions. Bltimately a little less certainty and seriousness might actually impro#e your reception with contemporary critics and enhance your perceptions of the past. In addition to Biblical chronology another aspect de#eloped by Anstey is that of e)ternal !ersian chronology which he belie#ed is deficient a #iew still held by some today. %hile I would certainly not suggest that any time period has an absolutely certain chronology I am now satisfied that the !ersian chronology, as de#eloped by scholars o#er the last half6 century can stand on its own. I would recommend (hronologie achCmCnide9 les rDgnes de Eer)Ds et Arta)er)Ds by $mmanuel Bertin 1010 a#ailable as an internet download. %hile much of Anstey-s wor and thin ing was at least partially acceptable for his day, using it as a model for contemporary reconstructions is largely misplaced with perhaps one e)ception that I hope to e)plore a little further at another time. In the meantime I wanted to ac nowledge a scholar and wor that formed part of my early learning e)perience from the late 19F0-s to late 19*0-s when it finally became clear that I had to lea#e his reconstructions behind. 'erbert 4torc &or 4cribd ,o#ember 1013