THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
enough back, in the chronologies of the two peoples to make an identification at all probable. Prior to 1907 Assyriologists generally dated Hammurabi to the twenty-third or twenty-fourth century, as will appear from the following figures as given by several writers: 2376-2333 (Sayce), 2342-2288 (Rogers), 22S5-2242 (Johns). These dates can not, on any hypothesis, be brought into even approximate relationship with any of the calculated Biblical dates. But in 1907 Dr. L. W King made a most happy discovery in the British Museum of new chronicles of earl}" Babylonian kings which at once set the chronology of the first Babylonian dynasty in quite a new light. It had been supposed that the second dynasty followed upon the first and the third upon the second, but these new chronicles showed conclusively that the second dynasty was partly contemporaneous with the third, and that, therefore, the date of the first dynasty must be much reduced. The most probable date for Hammurabi, yielded by this reduction, is 2130-2088 B.C. (so Thureau-Dangin and Ungnad), though King would date the beginning of this dynasty not much earlier than 2000 or 2050, which would make Hammurabi's date 193S-1SS3 or 1888-1833 b.c. These dates are almost certainly too low and the dates 2130-2088 b.c. may safely be regarded as a much closer approximation. If King's date were correct there would result a most striking correspondence between it and the date of Abraham's call 1875 b.c. as reckoned above from the exodus date at 1230 b.c. King is himself so much struck by this that he remarks: " We may conclude that the chronology of the Pentateuch, with regard to the length of time separating Abraham from Moses, exhibits far greater accuracy than we have hitherto had reason to believe " (Chronicles concerning Early Babylonian Kings, i. 25). Considered in the light of all that is said above, this statement should probably be regarded as stronger than is warranted. If the date circa 2100 be the date of Hammurabi and 1875 the date of Abraham's call, the discrepancy between them is two centuries and a quarter, and there appears to be no means of bringing them closer together. This, of course, does not prove that Hammurabi is not Amraphel ; it also does not prove that Gen. xiv. 1 is in error in making Amraphel and Abraham contemporaries. It merely proves that the chronological system of the Priest code is subject to the same errors as appear so abundantly in the chronological synchronisms which the books of Kings have worked out for the kings of Israel and Judah. Robeht W Rogers.
Bibliography: Many of the commentaries on the booka of Genesis, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah contain important discussions concerning the chronology, and the same is true of the works on the history of Israel (under Ahab; and Israel, History of). Besides this literature, consult: M. Niebuhr, Geschichte Assurs und Babels, Berlin, 1857; W B. Galloway, Egypt's Record of Time to the Exodus critically Investigated; with
Survey of the patriarchal Hint, and the Chronology of Scripture, London, 1869; T. Xdldeke, Untersuchung zur Kritik des A. Ts., pp. 173-198, Kiel, 1869; H. Brandes, Abhandlung zur Geschichte des Orients im Altertum, Halle, 1874; E. de Bunsen, Chronology of the Bible, connected with Contemporaneous E rents in the Hist, of Babylonians, Assyrians, and Egyptians, London, 1S74; B. Neteler, Zusammenhang der alltestamentlichen Zeitrechnungen mil der Profanqeschichte, 3 parts, Miinster, 1879-86; A. Kamphsiuscii,
Chronologie der hebraischen Kdnige, Bonn, 1883; V. A. Dumax, Revision et reconstitution de la chronologie biblique et profane, Paris, 1886-92; E. Mahler, Biblische Chronologie und Zeitrechnung der Hebriier, Vienna, 1887- C. Lederer, Die biblische Zeitrechnung, Erlangen, 1888; J. Orr, in Presbyterian Review, Jan., 1889; M. Macdonald, Harmony of Ancient Hist, and Chronology of the Egyptians and Jews, Philadelphia, 1891; A. A. van Hoonacker, Zorobabel et le second temple, Ghent, 1892; H. Wmckler, Alttestamentliche Untersuchungen, pp. 77 sqq., Leipsic 1892; W. H. Kosters, Het Herstel van Israel, Leyden, 1893; E. Kautzsch, Die heilige Schrift des A. Ts., Beilagen, pp. 110-135, Freiburg, 1894; E. Meyer, Entstehung des Judentums, Halle, 1896; idem, in SBA, 1904 and 1907 (on Egyptian chronology); C. Niebuhr, Die Chronologie der Geschichte Israels, Aegyptens, Babyloniens und Assyriens 2000-700 vor Christi, Leipsic, 1896; C. C. Torrey, in ZATW, 1896; C. F. Lehmann, Zwei Hauptprobleme der altorientalischen Chronologie, ib. 1898; \V. Bousset, in ZATW, 1900, pp. 136 sqq.; J. Urquhart, How Old is Manf Some misunderstood Chapters in Scripture Chronology, London, 1904; J. H. Breasted, Hist, of Egypt from the Earliest Times, New York, 1905; idem, Short Hist, of the Egyptians, ib. 1907; W. T. Lynn, Bible Chronology, London, 1905; L. W. King, Chronicles concerning early Babylonian Kings, 2 vols., ib. 1907; O. A. Toffteen, Ancient Chronology, Chicago, 1907, new ed., 1909 (comes down to 1050 b.c); W. J. Beecher, The Dated Events of the Old Testament: being a Presentation of Old [Testament Chronology, Philadelphia, 1908; D. R. Fotheringham, The Chronology of the Old Testament, Cambridge, 1908; R. Schram, Kalendariographische und chronologische Tafeln, Leipsic, 1908; S. Euringer, Die Chronologie der biblischen Urgeschichte (Gen. v., xi.). Minister, 1909; F. A. Herzog, Die Chronologie der beiden Konigsbiicher, Minister, 1909; F. A. Jones, The Dates of Genesis. A Comparison of the Biblical Chronology with that of other Nations, London, 1909; F. Westberg, Die biblische Chronologie nach Josephus und das Todesjahr Jesu, Leipsic, 1910; Smith, Prophets, pp. 145-151, 401-404, 413^19; Schrader, KAT; DB, i. 397-403; EB, i. 773-799; JE, iv. 64-70.
TIMOTHEUS ZELURUS. See Mqnofhysites, §§ 3 sqq.