[Image]  [Hi-Res Image]

Page 448

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), 2342-22$8 (Rogers), 2285-2242 (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 early 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 piobable 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 1938-1883 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 doe=s 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. . ROBERT W. ROGERS.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Many of the commentaries on the books of Genesis, Samuel, Kings, Chronicle§, and Ezra-Nehemiah contain important discussions concerning the chronology, and the same is true o_ the works on the. history of Israel (under Aana; and ISRAEL, HISTORY OF). Besides this literature, consult: M. Niebuhr, Geschichte Assure and Babels, Berlin, 1857; W. B. Galloway, Egypt's Record of Tines to the Exodus . . critically Investigated; with .

Survey of the patriarchal Hist. and the Chronology of Scripture, London, 1869; T. Noldeke, Unteraxu:hung zur ICritik den A. Ts., pp. 173-198, Kiel, 1869; H: Brandes, Abhandlung zur Geschichte des Orients im Altertum, Halls, 1874; E. de Bunsen, Chronology of the bible, connected with Corn temyoTavueaua Events in the HisG, of Babylonians, Assyrians, and Egyptians, London, 1874; B. Neteler, Zusammenhang der alttestamentlichen Zeitrechnuregen mit der Projareneschichte, 3 parts. Minster, 1879-8B; t>,. Karaphausen,

TIMOTHY THE DISCIPLE OF PAUL.

Timothy may be called Paul's disciple, com

panion, and fellow worker before all others. In six

of the New-Testament epistles (II Con, Phil., Col., I

and II. Thess., Philemon) his name is joined with

Paul's in the superscription. In the superscrip

tions to I and II Thess. (also in

z. In the II Cor. i. 19) Timothy is named after

Chief Silvanus, which implies that the latter

Pauline held a position of precedence and was

Epistles. probably the older; but too great stress

must not be laid on Timothy's youth.

To be sure, the two epistles addressed to Timothy

represent him as the type of a youthful bishop (I

Tim. iv. 12; II Tim. ii. 22; cf. the Gk. tekreon in L,

i. 18; IL, i. 2). But this is one reason among many

for suspecting the genuineness of these epistles;

the representation does not fit the man entrusted

by Paul with difficult duties. The Timothy of the

genuine epistles is by no means Paul's personal

attendant or amanuensis, but' his " workfellow "

and helper like Aquila and Priscilla (Rom. xvi. 3,

21), a man competent to establish in the faith and

strengthen the young congregation in Thessalonica

(I Thess. iii. 2) and to repeat Paul's preaching for

the Corinthians (I Cor. iv. 17; cf.. Phil. ii. 19-23).

Timothy seems to have hesitated to undertake