THE so-called British Chronological and Astronomical Association was originally established as a society in 1879. J. B. Dimbleby was still the head of it as late as as 1897, when its quarters were at Memorial Hall, Farringdon Street, London, E. C. Dimbleby was author and editor of the book All Past Time, on the title page of which he designated himself as "Premier Chronologist to the British Chronological and Astronomical Association, London," and as "First Enumerator of all the Eclipses and Transits." Indeed, he called himself "a chronologist and an astronomer" on page 22 of his All Past Time, ninth edition (1897).
In his book All Past Time not one real astronomer is cited by Dimbleby as either his associate or a fellow member of his British Chronological and Astronomical Association, and not one is cited as endorsing his views. On the contrary, that book bristles with unblushing hostility to ward real astronomers. For example, Dimbleby says:
"It is owing to the use of unscientific methods of computing time that none of the chiefs of astronomical observatories, nor even our own Astronomers Royal, have ever published tables of eclipses of the sun or moon, or transits of the planets Mercury and Venus. They cannot do so, because their systems of time are not natural and have no accord with planetary motion."—Ibid., p. 7.
Again: "As at present constituted, the Observatory is entirely a nautical institution, and has nothing to do with the Science of Time."—Ibid., p. 8.
Also: "Unfortunately, whilst there are professors of all other sciences at our Universities, there are none of the Science of Time. . . . Extravagant sums are annually voted from the public purse for making observations and calculations, pertaining to celestial phenomena, which practically are not worth a straw. Perhaps the only remedy for all this Egyptian darkness is, that either a new department for notifying scientific time must be added to the Greenwich Observatory, or a separate institution—already formed by the British Chronological and Astronomical Association—must be moderately endowed."— Ibid. (See also pp. 137, 138, 153.)
Dimbleby complained that "a certain astronomer has been denying the accuracy of the eclipses given from the zodiacal circle [presented in All Past Time, pp. 157-167], whereas he is the erroneous enumerator and not the natural and scientific years of the Circle. This bewilderment has hitherto prevented astronomers from understanding the movement of eclipses and precluded the possibility of arranging them into cycles. These two facts are sufficient to prove that the Royal Observatory as at present conducted on the basis of unnatural years can be of no service to either history or astronomy."—Ibid., p. 161. (That astronomer is identified on the next page as "Mr. Christy, the Astronomer Royal.")
Dimbleby Complains of Criticism
Dimbleby said also: "Sir Robert Ball spoke disrespectfully of myself when lecturing at Cambridge in the autumn of 1896." — Ibid., p. 194. (Sir Robert Ball was an eminent astronomer of that time.)
Dimbleby also complained of "the adverse criticisms raised by Dr. Grattan Guinness against a line of solar years by eclipses, namely, that they die out" (Ibid., p. 198). And he replied: "If Dr. Grattan Guinness had been better schooled in astronomy he would have had no occasion to seek to enlighten men in London by quoting largely from a list of eclipses 'made in Germany,' in the construction of which [Theodor von] Oppolzer, their author, is evidently perplexed by not understanding the Science of Time."—Ibid., p. 199.
Dimbleby answered Guinness by saying that "eclipses can be altogether dispensed with" (Ibid., p. 198). And concerning the work of the Astronomer Royal, he declared that "there is no reason that the science of astronomy should be confined to a few men who are mathematical scholars. Eclipses can be calculated in a better way by the simple plan laid down in these pages [of All Past Time}, and thus made subservient to all men for purposes of history. In addition to this, it may be stated that mathematical calculations of eclipses do not give the A.M. year from creation." —Ibid., p. 153.
The Better Way
What was Dimbleby's "better way" of doing the job? He explains it thus. "Mathematical calculations are admirable for continued uniform motion, but the movements of the moon are subject to increased velocities and disturbances, too technical to be explained here, so that when we cannot work with a motion 'straight off the reel,' but are hampered with what are known as 'the evection,' 'variation,' and the 'annual equation,' outside computations have to be adopted to rectify the longitude of the moon, and numerous minor inequalities allowed for, all of which tend to make mathematical calculations unreliable."—Ibid., p. 154. (See also p. 149.)
Thus we have it in Dimbleby's own words, that his system of chronology did not and could not mathematically harmonize with the true astronomical phenomena which he assumed and even alleged to be the basis of his work. He threw the mathematical calculations of astronomical science to the winds, adopted "outside computations" of his own devising, and employed whatever juggling he deemed convenient in his paper work in order to give it a semblance of scientific basis. He says his investigations "had not proceeded far when a splendid discovery was made by which it was seen that eclipses can be altogether dispensed with, inasmuch as the simple motions of the sun and the moon in the firmament always determine for us the amount of all past time in years, months, and days" (Ibid., p. 198).
His was a pencil-and-paper scheme in which he assumed that prior to the Flood men added an intercalary period of 77 days (11 weeks of 7 days each) at the end of every cycle of seven lunar years of 354 days each in order to synchronize this lunar period with a solar period of seven years of 365 days each. Seven solar years of 365 days each make a total of 2,555 days. Seven lunar years of 354 days each, plus an intercalary period of 77 days, make a total of 2,555 days! (See pp. 16, 23, 27, 101, 110, 128, 130.)
Adding and Subtracting Time
He used that seven-year cycle for the Biblical chronology of the first 1,721 years of world history. But from the year 1722 onward he employed a 15-year cycle, in which an intercalary month of 34 days was added at the end of every third lunar year to synchronize lunar time with solar time. However, he admits "that when some other adjustment was required by the accumulation of fractional excess or loss of time, an extra week was taken or thrown off at the end of the middle intercalary period (table i) of the Ancient Hebrew Solar Cycle, arising from the necessity of using there 35 instead of 34 days" (Ibid., p. 110. See also p. 23). That method of adjustment he called "clever manipulation" (Ibid., p. 86).
He resorted to such means because he found the tropical year—the interval be tween one vernal equinox and the next —with its average length of 365.2422 days; and the synodic lunar month—the inter val from one new moon to the next—with its average length of 29.5306 days, too difficult for him to use in his chronological calculation.
In his All Past Time, ninth edition (1897), Dimbleby did not fix a precise date for Joshua's "long day." He speaks of Herodotus and certain Chinese writings as mentioning it (Ibid., p. 95), and he announced: "Joshua commanding the sun to stand still is likely to be soon one of the brightest evidences of Scripture history."—Ibid., p. 131. Totten, using Dimbleby's tables, had already done so.
Dimbleby declared also that "the Great Pyramid [of Egypt] is a monument of stone confirming Biblical History" (Ibid., p. 51). Alleging that it was built in the time of Shem, son of Noah, he affirmed that "when the Egyptian priests discovered that Biblical periods and prophecies were the same as the astronomical measurements in their great pyramid, they would close it, lest their religion and worship should come into disrepute" (Ibid., p. 50).
Following Dimbleby, Totten appealed to the Great Pyramid, saying: "I intend to prove that this is the most stupendous monument to universal metrology that the human mind can realize, and I want to impress upon you that chronologically (a most important element of the vast science of metrology), the Great Pyramid indicates the one and only true system."—A Scientific Spike Through Noah's Ark, p. 247. (See also pp. 18, 32, 243-259, 263- 265, 280, 293.)
Totten taught that the earth was created long before the seven-day creation week of chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis, and that it was originally populated by "a pre-Adamic people" (Ibid., pp. 6-8).
Dimbleby reckoned that 58961,4 Anno Mundi was 189814 Anno Domini, and that then the times of the Gentiles would end, and Turkey would fall. And he said that during 30 years thereafter— that is, in A.M. 5926i/2 or A.D. 1928i4—the Jewish times would end, and events ushering in the millennium would start. (See All Past Time, pp. 202, 205.)
In fact, Dimbleby says in commenting on verses 7 and 8 of Revelation 20: "He will not raise this rebellion, etc., in less than 30 years. Neither will the final resurrection, or general judgment, at which the saints assist, be completed in a few years. But by the millennium beginning at the end of the Jewish times, 5926i/2 (our 1928), it will be completed in 6926i/2 [A.D. 2028] and thereby allow 70 years or more for the subsequent events before 7000 A.M."—-Ibid., p. 203. (See also p. 205.)
Totten likewise said concerning his own work and that of Dimbleby: "In our own work we differ only in minor matters of judgment (within those limits where it is justified) with some of the chronological conclusions of this [British Chronologi cal] Society, but we recognize the inestimable value of their fundamental system, and follow it in all of our work. That we are at one in our general conclusions as to 'the Coming Crisis' the following quotation from a recent publication of Mr. Dimbleby will demonstrate, to wit: 'What then is the lesson that the Scripture and the Science of Time reveals? We may expect that all civil governments and "isms" will be overturned in less than seven years hence (I write these lines, says Mr. Dimbleby in Sept., 1891) and that Divine authority will follow. We must also expect that most of the righteous persons now living will never see death.'"—A Scientific Spike Through Noah's Ark, pp. 313, 314. (Italics his.)
In the light of all that, we urge every body in general, and Seventh-day Adventists in particular, not to accept as reliable the news story that the Biblical accounts of Joshua 10:13, 14 and 2 Kings 20:11 have been corroborated by scientific discovery. Furthermore, we caution everyone not to use the unsound tables and calculations of either J. B. Dimbleby or C. A. L. Totten for work on Biblical chronology.
