In the first biblical chronology, the period is described which ran from the creation of Adam until the birth of Jesus, by means of the mentioning of biblical persons. Next, the length is given of the period which ran from the birth of Jesus Christ until the foundation of the Islam.

   At the beginning of the first biblical chronology, it is mentioned that no pagan calculations as delivered by Varro were used, but astronomic calculations, data which are taken from the Bible and further the “weak understanding”.²

   At the end of the first biblical chronology, it is mentioned that the calculations might be contested, since they differ from the ones, made by Eusebius.³ Next comes a reference to the foundation of the Islam. From that moment, it should be quite easy to verify which eras have passed and if the calculations regarding the future are correct for all mentioned countries. The year in which the Islam was founded (621 AD), is not mentioned.

   The transitions in the first biblical chronology are marked with the names of biblical persons. The length of each period is given with the restriction "about", except for the period David - Jesus (in table 1, the “about” is marked with the ± symbol).

   Brind’Amour compared the given time span of the period Adam - Noah, 1242 years, with time data in the Septuagint in Genesis 5 and Genesis 7 and established that, according to these bible books, the period Adam - Outbreak Deluge lasted 2242 years, a time span which was also used by Eusebius. The French text of the description of the period Adam - Noah reads: le premier homme Adam fut deuant Noë enuiron mille deux cens quarante deux ans. (tr.: Adam, the first man, existed about a thousand two hundred and forty-two years before Noah). Basing himself upon the time span in the Septuagint and the assumptions of Eusebius, Brind’Amour supposed that in the current text of the Epistle to Henry II, the word deux was not included and that originally this text might have read as follows: le premier homme Adam fut deuant Noë enuiron deux mille deux cens quarante deux ans (tr.: Adam, the first man, existed about two thousand two hundred and forty-two years before Noah).⁶

   It is not always possible to establish an exact chronology of biblical persons and events. A number of bible verses contain time data which are in conflict with time data in other bible verses. In other cases, phrasings of time data can be interpreted in several ways. In Nostradamus astrophile, Brind’Amour did not discuss this, but this does not mean by definition that during his investigation he did not encounter these problems.

   An example of conflicting information which can be interpreted in several ways, is Noah’s age at the time of the outbreak of the Deluge and at the time of his death. In Genesis 7,6, it reads that Noah was 600 years old when he, his family and the animals moved into the Ark. In Genesis 7,10, it reads that this took seven days. In Genesis 7,11, it reads that the waters came over the earth at the 17th day in the 2nd month in Noah’s 600th year of life. The remark “600th year of life” indicates an age of 599 years. In Genesis 8,13, it reads that the water levels were low at toe 1st day in the 1st month in Noah’s 601st year of life. The remark “601st year of life” indicates an age of 600 years. In Genesis 9,28-29, it reads that after the Deluge, Noah lived for 350 years and died at the age of 950 years. If the remark “after the Deluge” is interpreted as “after the outbreak of the Deluge”, the age of Noah fits to Genesis 9,28-29 and Genesis 7,6.

   While verifying the time span of the period Noah - Abraham with time data in the Septuagint, Brind’Amour did not include the period Outbreak Deluge - Arphaxad. Quite strange, since first, according to Brind’Amour, the period Adam - Noah ran from the creation of Adam until the outbreak of the Deluge. One expects that while verifying the next period (Noah - Abraham), the verification would start with time data, counting from the outbreak of the Deluge instead of a birth which took place after the Deluge. Second, while verifying the time span of the period End Deluge - Abraham in the second biblical chronology, Brind’Amour completed his verification calculations, based upon the Vulgate, with the time span of two years of the period End Deluge - Arphaxad, mentioned in Genesis 11,10, a time span which is also given in Genesis 11,10 in the Septuagint.⁹

   The time data regarding the length of the period Outbreak Deluge - Arphaxad are in conflict with each other. In Genesis 11,10, it reads that Sems age at the time of fathering Arphaxad was 100 years, followed by the words “two years after the flood”. Because of this additional remark, the age of Sem, given in Genesis 11,10, does not fit to time data in Genesis 5,32 and 7,6. According to Genesis 5,32, the age of Noah at the time of fathering Sem was 500 years. According to Genesis 7,6, the Deluge began when Noah was 600 years old, which means that at that time, Sems age was 100 years. According to Genesis 7,11 and 8,13-14, the Deluge lasted one year and ten days. At the end of the Deluge, Sems age was 101 years. The remark “two years after the flood” means “two years after the end of the Deluge”. This means that Sems age around the time he fathered Arphaxad was 103 years. The author of this essay assumes that the period Outbreak Deluge - Arphaxad lasted 3 years, basing himself upon time data in Genesis 5,32, 7,11, 8,13-14 and the additional remark “two years after the flood” in Genesis 11,10.

   Brind’Amour does not discuss the causes of the differences of 10 or 11 years between the time spans of the period Abraham - Moses in the first biblical chronology with the time span of 505 years, established by Eusebius.

   While studying Brind’Amours investigation, the author of this essay discovered that Eusebius’ calculation of the time span of the period Promise to Abraham - Exodus is 215 years off. This mistake does not change the fact that Eusebius counted with 505 years and that this time span corresponds to some extent with the 515/516 years in the first biblical chronology. However, it is worthwhile to discuss this matter, especially since a mistake of 215 years is at stake. In Nostradamus astrophile, nothing is written about this.

   Only in one period (Adam - Noah), Brind’Amour found corresponding time sources: time data in the Septuagint and calculations by Eusebius. The point of view of Brind’Amour is that in the original text of the first biblical chronology, it reads deux mille deux cens quarante deux ans instead of, as printed in the circulating text, mille deux cens quarante deux ans. In this case, Brind’Amour corrected the time span, given in the first biblical chronology. In two other cases (Noah - Abraham and Abraham - Moses), he observed differences, but dit not correct the time spans, given for these periods. Brind’Amour could not find biblical sources which correspond with the time spans of the periods Moses - David and David - Jesus.

   Brind’Amour interpreted the indication “Noah” in the period Adam - Noah as a reference to his age at the time of the outbreak of the Deluge.

   Regarding the time data in the period Noah - Abraham, the time data in the period Arphaxad - Abraham are calculated with data which are not in the Greek text of the Septuagint, as Brind’Amour writes, but in the Alexandrian text. Brind’Amour started his verification with the period Arphaxad - Caïnan (Genesis 11,12). He did not calculate the time span of the preceding period (Outbreak Deluge - Arphaxad).

   In the case of the period Abraham - Moses, Brind’Amour interpreted the indication “Moses” as a reference to the moment on which the Exodus started. He refers to a calculation, done by Eusebius, who based himself upon Galatians 3,17. This verse contains a mistake regarding time data; the question is if Brind’Amour observed this mistake.

   In the Epistle to Henry II, it reads that the first biblical chronology is based upon the Bible, astronomical calculations and the “weak understanding”. Brind’Amour only discussed biblical sources. He did not discuss the first biblical chronology from an astrological point of view and did not write whether or not he investigated the first biblical chronology by means of astrology.

   It looks as if the time spans of the first biblical chronology as they result from the time data in the Epistle to Henry II (4757 and 4758 years) can be related to elements of astrological time structures, described by e.g. the French canon Richard Roussat in Livre de l’estat et mutation de temps (1549).

   In Livre de l’estat..., which is an elaboration of Pierre Turrel’s Le période c’est a dire la fin du monde (1531), Roussat introduces four time structures in order to demonstrate that the end of the world is near. In the first structure, the existence of the world is estimated to be 7000 years and divided in four periods of 1750 years. According to Roussat, Adam was created in 5200 BC. In the second structure, he calculates with series of seven “Great Years”, counting from 5200 BC. A Great Year is a period of 354 years and 4 months, ruled by a planet.

   According to Roussat, from June 1533 to October 1587 a Great Year is running, ruled by the Moon. This Year is the penultimate Year in the third series of Great Years. From October 1587 to February 2242, the last Great Year is running, ruled by the Sun. In the Great Year structure, February 2242 is an important transition moment. Then, unless the world has come to an end, the fourth series of seven Great Years will begin, of which the first Great Year is ruled by Saturn.

   The first biblical chronology has two time spans: 4757 and 4758 years. These time spans differ about 2242 years with the 7000-year existence of the world, mentioned in the first astrological time structure in Livre de l’estat... This leads to the assumption that the first biblical chronology is part of a time structure, in which the existence of the world is estimated to be 7000 years. In this time structure, Adam is created in 4757/4758 BC. The question is if from this time structure the conclusion can be derived that the world will come to an end in 2242 AD. In the series of predictions which are preceded by the first biblical chronology, there is no allusion to the end of the world, but to a great increase of the number of adversaries of Jesus Christ and his church.¹⁶

   According to the Epistle to Henry II, the calculations regarding the first biblical chronology are based upon the Bible, astronomy and the “weak understanding”. Astronomy (astrology) seems to be visible in the year 2242 AD, which might be borrowed from the astrological time structure of Great Years, formulated by e.g. Roussat. This does not mean that this part of the Epistle to Henry II is based upon Livre de l’estat... The discussed time data might very well be copied from other publications.

   In the Preface to Cesar, there is an allusion to the rulership of the Moon over the penultimate Great Year in the third series of seven, and the rulership of the Sun over the last Great Year in this series. In the Epistle to Henry II, there are no allusions to these rulerships. At the end of the Epistle, there is an allusion to “another rulership of Saturn, who brings a golden era”. This allusion seems to have no arithmetic correspondences with the first biblical chronology, but with the second. It is possible that the year 2242 AD is presented as a year, without the involvement of the structure of Great Years.

   In 1999, the Frenchman Yves Lenoble interpreted the words au commencement du septiesme millenaire as “the beginning of the year 7000 AM” (AM: Anno Mundi, counting from the creation of the world), without investigating correspondences with the first biblical chronology and its context.²⁰ Assuming that Adam has been created in 4757/4758 BC, the year 7000 AM is the year 2242 AD, the year in which, according to the structure of Great Years as formulated by Roussat, the third series is followed by a fourth series and in which, according to the Epistle to Henry II, the number of adversaries of Jesus Christ and his church strongly increases.

   One of the differences between the first biblical chronology and the second is that the second biblical chronology is closed with a total: about 4173 years and 8 months. Because of this total, wrong time data in the second biblical chronology can be corrected to a certain extent.

   In the Epistle to Henry II, the time span of the first biblical chronology is not given. If one verifies the time data of this chronology with e.g. the Septuagint, the discrepancy mille / deux mille is quite clear. The assumption that the word deux is omitted, is at hand. The reason that the time span 1242 can be changed into 2242 is that in the Epistle to Henry II, there is no time span of the first biblical chronology itself.

   In 1927, the Frenchman P.V. Piobb observed that the number 621 plays an important role in the first biblical chronology: the period Adam - Noah (1242 years, i.e. 2 x 621 years) and the period Jesus - foundation Islam (621 years).²¹ Assuming that the first biblical chronology is part of a time structure which spans 7000 years and the year of creation is 4757/4758 BC, once again the number 621 is brought into the limelight. In this structure, the seventh millennium begins in 1242 AD, 621 years after the foundation of the Islam in 621 AD.

Notes

¹ See: facsimile-Chomarat-2000, p.155. In the 1668-Amsterdam-edition, it reads March 14, 1547 instead of March 14, 1557. Retour