When sinologists were geologists: Chinese chronology in early modern England and the heterodox Chinese studies of Robert Hooke and John Beaumont

The transmission of ancient Chinese history to Europe has often been thought to have contributed to a European crisis of confidence in biblical chronology, since Chinese history appeared to be dramatically longer than that of the Bible. This article explores the early modern English context of this reception, revealing the surprising dearth of anti-biblical uses of ancient Chinese history, with seventeenth-century English writers instead remaining relatively confident that it could be integrated into the biblical chronological framework. It then draws on the Chinese studies of Robert Hooke and John Beaumont to suggest that for those few who did bring the apparent antiquity of Chinese history into conflict with the Bible, sinology was rarely the primary driving force behind their critique. Rather, these cases suggest that Chinese history was normally weaponised against biblical chronology by writers already predisposed to scepticism of biblical world history by their scientific, particularly geological, interests. Although their sinological studies reinforced these geologically derived doubts, they were not what primarily instigated such scepticism. The article consequently concludes that ancient Chinese history had a more limited impact on overturning biblical chronology than has been hitherto assumed.