What do you think?
Rate this book
The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended
Sir Issac Newton's 'short chronicle from the first memory of things in Europe, to the Conquest of Persia by Alexander the Great'
408 pages, Kindle Edition
First published June 1, 1988
61 people are currently reading
420 people want to read
About the author
Elbert Hubbard
2,607Ìýbooks385ÌýfollowersElbert Green Hubbard was an American writer, publisher, artist, and philosopher. He was an influential exponent of the Arts and Crafts movement and is, perhaps, most famous for his essay A Message to Garcia.
Also known as Fra Elbert Green, for the magazine he edited, Fra.
from
For a more detailed look at this life, see:
Also known as Fra Elbert Green, for the magazine he edited, Fra.
from
For a more detailed look at this life, see:
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
March 4, 2020
Book Review of The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended, by Isaac Newton
A few years ago, I discovered Russian topologist Anatoly Fomenko’s “New Chronology,� a revision of accepted chronology wherein he postulates that events attributed to the civilizations of the Roman Empire, Ancient Greece and Ancient Egypt were “phantom copies� of what actually occurred in the Middle Ages. These “phantom copies� were assigned various dates and locations by contemporary priests and scholars, which were misdated by centuries and millennia, and thus incorporated into conventional chronology. There are a number of chronological revisionists, but I was surprised to see Isaac Newton among them.
In The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended, Newton first provides a brief chronicle of the events between early European history and Alexander the Great’s conquest of Persia, and then discusses the chronology of the Greeks, the Empires of Egypt and Assyria, the contemporary Empires of the Babylonians and Medes, the constitution of Solomon’s Temple and finally the Persian Empire. Each era is contrasted with biblical chronology, which is essentially constructed from the extensive genealogies from the biblical patriarchs to the judges and kingdoms of the Bible, on which Newton founds his analysis, surprisingly enough.
Given Newton’s stature as the paragon of science, his reliance on the Bible as an authoritative historical document is curiously disassociated from his work in astronomy, optics, physics and other various sciences. Though I am skeptical of Newtonian physics, the theoretical infallibility with which modern science ascribes to him contrasts remarkably with its regard for biblical history, which is considered to be mere mythology, if not outright fiction, by that same community. Nevertheless, Newton unhesitatingly relies upon biblical history to formulate his fundamental hypothesis—that conventional chronology is ultimately corrupted by miscalculation and the careless methods historians used to outline and define eras, which he suggests were extended to proportional absurdity and vastly misrepresent the length of each thereof.
Newton recounts how Egyptian priests ascribed fixed timespans to eras, generations and kingdoms, rather than through scientific method. For example, one-hundred years is prefigured as three generations in their calculation, so rather than consult historical records and horoscopes, they defaulted to their prefiguration, which Newton posits as the fundamental problem with their chronology, and attributes it to the desire to appear historically magnanimous. Given the scope of the histories of these cultures and empires, such misrepresentations leave many hundred- and some thousand-year gaps that are otherwise unintelligible chronologically.
As a student of the Bible, my opinion of Isaac Newton has dramatically changed and I now view him as a vastly misunderstood man, who, though not infallible, was truly a man after the Truth, however unconventional his route thereto. However incomprehensive his analysis may be in The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended, he presents a remarkably strong case for the incomprehensibility of contemporary chronology, as well as the general authoritativeness of biblical history, which in contrast to the records of the Greeks, Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes and Persians, is undeniably more reasonable and far more extensive generally.
A few years ago, I discovered Russian topologist Anatoly Fomenko’s “New Chronology,� a revision of accepted chronology wherein he postulates that events attributed to the civilizations of the Roman Empire, Ancient Greece and Ancient Egypt were “phantom copies� of what actually occurred in the Middle Ages. These “phantom copies� were assigned various dates and locations by contemporary priests and scholars, which were misdated by centuries and millennia, and thus incorporated into conventional chronology. There are a number of chronological revisionists, but I was surprised to see Isaac Newton among them.
In The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended, Newton first provides a brief chronicle of the events between early European history and Alexander the Great’s conquest of Persia, and then discusses the chronology of the Greeks, the Empires of Egypt and Assyria, the contemporary Empires of the Babylonians and Medes, the constitution of Solomon’s Temple and finally the Persian Empire. Each era is contrasted with biblical chronology, which is essentially constructed from the extensive genealogies from the biblical patriarchs to the judges and kingdoms of the Bible, on which Newton founds his analysis, surprisingly enough.
Given Newton’s stature as the paragon of science, his reliance on the Bible as an authoritative historical document is curiously disassociated from his work in astronomy, optics, physics and other various sciences. Though I am skeptical of Newtonian physics, the theoretical infallibility with which modern science ascribes to him contrasts remarkably with its regard for biblical history, which is considered to be mere mythology, if not outright fiction, by that same community. Nevertheless, Newton unhesitatingly relies upon biblical history to formulate his fundamental hypothesis—that conventional chronology is ultimately corrupted by miscalculation and the careless methods historians used to outline and define eras, which he suggests were extended to proportional absurdity and vastly misrepresent the length of each thereof.
Newton recounts how Egyptian priests ascribed fixed timespans to eras, generations and kingdoms, rather than through scientific method. For example, one-hundred years is prefigured as three generations in their calculation, so rather than consult historical records and horoscopes, they defaulted to their prefiguration, which Newton posits as the fundamental problem with their chronology, and attributes it to the desire to appear historically magnanimous. Given the scope of the histories of these cultures and empires, such misrepresentations leave many hundred- and some thousand-year gaps that are otherwise unintelligible chronologically.
As a student of the Bible, my opinion of Isaac Newton has dramatically changed and I now view him as a vastly misunderstood man, who, though not infallible, was truly a man after the Truth, however unconventional his route thereto. However incomprehensive his analysis may be in The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended, he presents a remarkably strong case for the incomprehensibility of contemporary chronology, as well as the general authoritativeness of biblical history, which in contrast to the records of the Greeks, Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes and Persians, is undeniably more reasonable and far more extensive generally.
April 4, 2019
Read like a telephone directory
February 23, 2014
Long and dull, as many history books are.
If you are interested in the history of history it might be worth perusing, or maybe if you want to write a story set in the period and would like to better grasp the ideas and prejudices of the day.
Even if you are not so inclined the you should read the intro/preface, written by a contemporary of Newton to the Queen by John Conduitt (Politician and relative of Newton) - It is as fine and wonderful example of Obsequious Narcissism as I have ever read. It is a must-read!
If you are interested in the history of history it might be worth perusing, or maybe if you want to write a story set in the period and would like to better grasp the ideas and prejudices of the day.
Even if you are not so inclined the you should read the intro/preface, written by a contemporary of Newton to the Queen by John Conduitt (Politician and relative of Newton) - It is as fine and wonderful example of Obsequious Narcissism as I have ever read. It is a must-read!
Read
March 29, 2013hi
its good
its good
May 3, 2021
Incredibly tedious.
September 18, 2021
A must read for any history readers, accurate, real, unbiased trusted author.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.