Talk:James Ussher

What is the difference between sarcasm and sardonism?

House of Usher. Get the joke or don´t get it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4DD4:D7A9:0:A51C:29C7:277F:DAB0 (talk) 13:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Date of Creation

The lead-in says Oct. 22, but the Chronology section says 23... which is it?

The article currently gives Ussher's date for the creation as

23 October, 4004 B.C., at midday

however, this freemasonry website is keen to point out everyone elses errors in reporting Ussher's results and appears fairly emphatic in claiming the correct date should be

Sunday, October 23rd, 4004, beginning at sunset of the 22nd

So we have a slight discrepancy on the exact time. Although these Freemasons clearly loose Brownie points by not explicitly stating that the year as BCE, and not mentioning the Julian calendar.

It looks like most people agree on 23 October, but can anyone confirm the time? -- Solipsist 18:32, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cut from the article this morning: For reference, nightfall in the UK on the 22nd October 2006 will be at 5.54pm, according to OURCs.Org.UK[1]. I am not sure how the sunset in Oxford is relevant to the chronology. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The Melvyn Bragg program In Our Time "The Age of the Universe 03 Mar 11Thu, 3 Mar 11" downloadable from

all the programs podcast website states in the introduction that Usher wrote in Hebrew that the earth was created at 6pm on 22 October 4004 BC. This is likely to be authoritative. Jewish religious events e.g. the Sabbath start at Sundown on the evening before. I believe that is a full explanation in Ushers view of the time anomalies and sunset. Presumably the bit of earth one stands on was created at sundown - a sort of relativistic effect :) Unless there are any objections I'll update to show 6 pm i.e. Sundown on 22nd October. JRPG (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to regard In Our Time as (one of the few) radio programme(s) to be a reliable source for an encyclopedia. JRPG: thanks for checking this up: I will download the episode to my podcatcher. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence in Ussher's Annals of the World stated:

In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth, Gen. 1, v. 1. Which beginning of time, according to our Chronologie, fell upon the entrance of the night preceding the twenty third day of Octob[er] in the year of the Julian [Period] 710. The year before Christ 4004. The Julian Period 710.

See the discussion in Ussher chronology#Ussher's methods, which also includes images of the applicable Latin and English pages. "Entrance of the night" is a Jewish term often translated as "nightfall", specifically meaning when three medium-sized stars become visible, about a half-hour later than sunset (depending on latitude). On the other hand, he stated in his "Epistle to the Reader", page 9 (2003): "I deduce that the time from the creation until midnight, January 1, 1 AD was 4003 years, seventy days and six hours." Six hours before midnight would be 6 pm. — Joe Kress (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. The current phrasing "the night preceding Sunday, 23 October 4004 BC" is nonsensical. The night preceding the 23rd (assuming we're talking about the beginning of the night) was the 22nd. We phrase things (per MOS) in English formats and not according to the "days" of the Jewish calendar. (Which this isn't even expressed as.) — LlywelynII 14:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Attitude to Irish

The claim that Ussher 'successfully opposed attempts to reintroduce the Irish language for use in church services' is an old canard: clearly refuted in O'Sullivan, W. S. (1968). "Review of R.B.Knox, James Ussher Archbishop of Armagh." Irish Historical Studies xvi: 215-19; and Leerssen, J. (1982-3). "Archbishop Ussher and Gaelic culture." Studia Hibernica xxii-xxiii: 50-58. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.220.42 (talk • contribs)

Sources?

"The traditional portrait of Ussher is of a slightly unworldly scholar who was at best a mediocre politician and administrator. In fact he was a perfectly effective bishop and archbishop, and his learning earned him considerable respect in political circles." -- We have here a claim about the "traditional portrait of Ussher", followed by a claim that "in fact" this portrait is incorrect -- both without sources. If we're going to make claims like these, let's provide something to back them up. - 200.141.105.210 04:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well OK: the only reason I omitted the sources is that they are voluminous. From Burnett in his biography of Bedell in the 1680s to his modern biographers, Ussher is often accused of focusing upon research rather than administration and politics. That he preferred research is fairly obvious from his letters, but nevertheless he was still a throughly competent diocesan administrator (see his return to the 1622 commissioners for Meath, and the care he gave to improving the income of Armagh int eh 1630s) and a highly important political figure, largely because of ihs voluminous learning. The most obvious example of the latter comes from 1640-42, when he returned to England and was at the centre of efforts to find a solution to the problem of church government: if you are looking for a source here, check out Abbott, W. M. (1990). "James Ussher and "Ussherian" episcopacy, 1640-1656: the primate and his Reduction manuscript." Albion xxii: 237-59. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.220.42 (talk • contribs)

Just an additional suggestion that doesn't need to be done, but if done, will improve the article: we should cite the works in which John Lightfoot, Isaac Newton, and Joseph Justus Scaliger calculated their respective dates of creation in footnotes listed in the Ussher chronology section. --Joshuajohnson555 (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Historical events: Ussher cf. modern chronologies

"His account of these later events for which he has multiple sources is usually in close agreement with modern accounts. For example, he places the death of Alexander in 323 BC and that of Julius Caesar in 44 BC. Both of these dates are the same as in the modern chronology." -- This seems completely non-noteworthy to me, as Ussher's chronology of these events and the modern ones are presumably based on the same sources. Is there any reason why this is interesting? Answer: Because he was a very good writer and a very impressive historian for his time and more impressively even for today!-- 200.141.105.210 04:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Right, I added this note because I believe that all many people know of Ussher is the 4004 B.C. date, and thus conclude that he was a complete quack. These are just two specific examples I happened to know of where he agreed exactly with the modern chronology. They give evidence that thre rest of his chronology was quite good. --Dantheox 22:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

My 2 cents: it would be great to have the dates that current historians think these events happened to make them make a point - I have no idea when julius caesar died - Ussher's estimate could be centuries off. I know I could look it up, but I'm not going to hence not be convinced Ussher did good.

210.246.2.197 03:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Date of Ussher's degrees, ordination

Most people simply quote Bernard here, or Alumni Dublinenses. As far as you can see from the Particular Book (ed. Mahaffy), and its references to Ussher, he obtained his BA by 1599, probably in 1598, was a fellow and MA by 1600. As for his ordination, Bernard says he was made deacon and priest on the same day (a not uncommon practice in the Church of Ireland): but the surviving certificate of ordination (TCD MS 2624)records that he was made deacon in May 1602 but has no mention of priest, suggesting that that might have happened a year later, as was normal in England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.220.42 (talk • contribs)

I see the text gives the Alumni Dublinenses date for Ussher's MA: has the author checked this in the Particular Book? I'd be interested in what the evidence for this date is: I haven't found any in the Particular Book, but I may have missed it - it's not exactly an easy read.

Sometimes you have to judge when a student became MA by the title he was given in the Particular Book at a given date: an MA would be called Mr.

Name

Is there any evidence that Ussher spelt his name or was widely known as Usher? I can't find any source for this, but people out there have much better ones. If he did not, and it is just a later misspelling, I think it perhaps better left outside the article, or possibly a footnote. MAG1 23:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

A quick check on Google reveals 150,000 hits for Archbishop James Usher and only 59,500 for Archbishop James Ussher. Even if Usher is a misspelling, that many hits demands a bold entry at the head of the article. But I have seen enough reputable sources using Usher that I don't regard it as a misspelling, simply an alternate spelling. — Joe Kress 04:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Drop the 'Archbishop' and Google finds 242 000 James Ussher articles, which all seem to refer to him; however I don't think Google is a particularly sensible way to establish names, especially when formed from ordinary nouns. You may be pleased to know that I have found where the single s version seems to come from, and that's the title of Bernard's sermon at Ussher's funeral. However, the double ss version seems to be used universally in modern texts. MAG1 19:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Because Google tends to drop addtional terms late in the search if they are not enclosed in quotes, I fear that my previous search may have included many hits for the R&B singer Usher. Redoing the searches, I obtain 15,400 for "Archbishop James Ussher" but only 873 for "Archbishop James Usher". In 1650, the spelling of English words was not yet fixed, so even names could be spelled in whatever manner the writer chose. — Joe Kress 07:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The best way of checking the spelling of Ussher's name is how he spelt it himself: he consistently signs himself Ussher or Usserius. Usher is a later misspelling.

This is right, but it's hardly 15,000 to 900. Vanilla Google's "hit" numbers (even Google Book's, until you get to the last page of results) are acknowledged as completely made up. They just don't think anyone really cares and don't bother to compute the real number. On the other hand, scholar.google.com and Google Ngrams are both accurate within their fields (which, luckily for us, are WP:RS). Abp. Ussher returns a bit more than Usher but far more than "sometimes" or "occasionally". It's a fully variant spelling, the primary spelling in historical sources, and should be acknowledged as such in our lede. — LlywelynII 14:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Ussher's sources

The comment that Ussher used the Jewish season, but not the year looks really interesting, but needs to be fully explained to make sense. In addition, does it have any bearing on the version of the Old Testament that Ussher used? If not, it is a point that needs explaining separately. MAG1 23:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

He specifically placed Creation at the autumnal equinox, which he dated to October 23. If he had used Kepler's Rudolphine Tables (1627) to determine the equinox, he would have placed it on October 25. See my discussion at Ussher-Lightfoot Calendar. The majority of Jewish scholars place the Creation near the autumnal equinox, although a minority place it near the vernal equinox (see dating Creation). Ussher obviously used the Latin Vulgate bible, which, for the most part, is simply a translation of the Masoretic Tanakh (Hebrew Scriptures). Only its Deuterocanonical books (called the Apocrypha in the King James Bible) were translated from the Septuagint.

Millennialism or chiliasm demanded that the Incarnation of Christ must have occurred during the middle of the sixth millennia, placing Creation near 5500 BC for the Septuagint. But the patriarchs between Adam and Abraham often begat their named sons when they were 100 years younger in the Vulgate, thus almost 1500 years later (see the Genealogies of Genesis in chapters 5 & 11). Thus the Vulgate (as well as the King James Bible) demands a Creation near 4000 BC. His Creation in 4004 BC is quite different from the standard Jewish Creation of 3761 BC, so it is not a Jewish year. See Hebrew calendar. He accepted Kepler's determination that Herod the Great died in 4 BC, thus he simply added four years to four millennia. — Joe Kress 04:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You sure about this? I can't imagine Ussher messing around with the Vulgate when he could directly read the original. MAG1 19:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Which is "the original" is debateable because the Vulgate was translated in 405 whereas the Masoretic text was not fixed until the tenth century. Both suffered from scribal changes in the interim. Nevertheless, the differences should have been minor. I am not sure which Bible he preferred, but he wrote in Latin and his Annals include an extensive history of the Maccabees, which he could not obtain from the Masoretic text, only from the Vulgate or the Septuagint. His preface only states he used "sacred" texts. In contrast, he was much more specific concerning the sources of the "heathen" history which he merged into his biblical history.

I made a slight error by stating that he placed Creation at the autumnal equinox. Actually, he placed Creation at the Sunday nearest the autumnal equinox. Thus October 23 is a Sunday which happens to precede the autumnal equinox on October 25. Another slight error occurred when I stated that the Jewish Creation was in 3761 BC. That is the epoch of the modern Jewish calendar. Jewish Creation is one year later, in 3760 BC. — Joe Kress 07:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Links

The Manual of Style states that an article is overlinked if more than 10% of its words are links or links exceed one per line, among other criteria. On the whole, the article now meets these criteria. — Joe Kress 07:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

There are a series of gratuitous links to various Irish historians but these seem to have no direct link to the subject. Could consideration be given to either (i) demonstrating the link or (ii) removing them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.107.22 (talk) 11:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Primate of All Ireland

This section seems stubby. Are the sources weak on describing his primacy, or is it just something to be added? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I've had a go at expanding this. MAG1 17:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't know the sources, but this is good to see. Cool MAG1. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Oxford DNB is the source- hopefully this is a bit clearer with a bibliography section. MAG1 08:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Eek - I didn't make myself clear. All I mean is that I haven't made an effort to read the sources myself. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Not at all a problem: it wasn't clear what was the source of much of the article. MAG1 18:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholic

JU has been categorised as a RC Archbishop - he'll be turning in his grave (if he hasn't already been raptured). I think the problem is that Archbishops of Armagh is a red link, so that page will have to be created.--Shtove 15:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

McDowell

Who is the person who keeps adding the name McDowell to James Stanihurst's name, and, even more strangely to Ambrose Ussher's name? Some mad McDowell genealogist, trying to foist his name on some one who never used it? All contemporary references to James Stanihurst record him as plain James Stanihurst. Could we please leave him like that, unless you can produce some contemporary evidence that he actually signed himself McDowell? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.85.36 (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ussher should not redirect here

I just created John Tannatt Ussher and I know there are other Usshers and Ushers out there (as in The Fall of the House of...); can't put a dab line here as my J. Ussher isn't a James......so what to do? Can there be a two-item disambig page, or do we have to dig up another Ussher/Usher to make it happen?Skookum1 08:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

An Ussher (disambiguation) page may be order, linked via an {{otheruses2}} template at the top of this article, see WP:DAB. However, an Usher disambiguation page already exists, with The Fall of the House of Usher and other 'usher's. I'm not sure whether two disambiguation pages with slightly different spellings are warranted or not. Searching for Ussher yields Kitty Ussher, Ussher chronology, Ussher Gospels (redirect), Elizabeth Ussher (redirect), and now your John Tannatt Ussher. However, Ussher should still redirect here because most readers searching for Ussher will want information on Archbishop James Ussher. — Joe Kress 21:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Joe Kress on this. I have set up a disambiguation page for other Usshers. MAG1 21:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

External Links and References

The one before last external link ("Ussher and the Date of Creation (Answers Magazine)") points to a site that explicitly states their mission as "dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively". That site is full of patently erroneous claims, it should be removed: it does not enhance or contribute to clarify/expand the material covered in the Wikipedia article. It should be removed. --NullaEst (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Anecdote

When I was a student of Biology at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem I visited a friend of mine at the Dept. of Botany. The department secretary had seen the date (and I think time) of creation in some newspaper and thought it was extremely funny. So much so, that she copied and enlarged it many times (with the biggest one taking a full meter span) and hung them on the walls, doors closets and bookshelves. The whole office with adjoining rooms were full of: 9pm 23 October 4004 BC! Instead of laughing, it got me interested in the whole thing, and taught me a lot.Pashute (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

China

I have a facsimile of a late 19th century chart compiled from Ushers work which shows a timeline for China. Does anyone know if this was in Usshers original work and if not, when it was added? Fainites ^barleyscribs 19:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Kindly publish it on Wikisource, if you've got time. — LlywelynII 13:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

NPOV issues

So, the article currently has the statement

Ussher is also popular amongst creationists, even though they reject his methodology of using the most up to date contemporary scientific, chronological, historical and biblical scholarship to date the age of the world.

which I would argue is not only unsourced and POVy but highly dubious. What is much closer to the truth is that Ussher is very popular with atheists, who use his over-precise figure as a Godwin-style cudgel against their enemies, ignoring that Ussher did use the most up-to-date scientific, historical, and literary scholarship available to him.

Is there anyone this side of open trolls who actually adheres to Ussher's calculations as a revelation? Is there any way to include atheists' misuse of his calculation (crediting it to mainstream Christianity or current believers) without just introducing countervaling snark? (Fwiw, I say this as an agnostic; I just admire the man's scholarship enough that I think we should present what's happened to his legacy more honestly.) — LlywelynII 13:47, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with what you've said. I removed that sentence from the article. Hypertall (talk) 08:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Education

His uncle, the Archdeacon of Dublin encouraged him to read the Bible, the first book he read completely (Gorst, 2001). At age eight, he was sent to Latin School headed by two Scotsmen who were using it as a cover to spy for the English King (Gorst, 2001). Mrrogersingh (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)