tion may yield solid historical results: first, through the retention in the popular memory of the impression caused by real events and personalities; secondly, by the recovery of historic (mainly ethnographic) material from the biographic form of the tradition; and thirdly, through the confirmation of contemporary 'archæological' evidence. It will be convenient to start with the last of these, and consider what is known about—
1. The historical background of the patriarchal traditions.—The period covered by the patriarchal narratives[1] may be defined very roughly as the first half of the second millennium (2000-1500) B.C. The upper limit depends on the generally accepted assumption, based (somewhat insecurely, as it seems to us) on ch. 14, that Abraham was contemporary with Ḫammurabi, the 6th king of the first Babylonian dynasty. The date of Ḫammurabi is probably c. 2100 B.C.[2]
- ↑ The discussion in this section is confined to the patriarchal tradition, because it is only with regard to it that the question of essential historicity arises. Every one admits that the pre-historic chapters (1-11) stand on a different footing, and there are few who would claim for them the authority of a continuous tradition.
- ↑ The date here assigned to Ḫammurabi is based on the recent investigations of Thureau-Dangin (Journal des Savants [1908], 190 ff.; ZA, xxi. [1908], 176 ff.), and Ungnad (OLz. [1908], 13 ff.); with whom Poebel (ZA, xxi. 162 ff.) is in substantial agreement. The higher estimates which formerly prevailed depended on the natural assumption that the first three dynasties of the Royal Lists (first published in 1880 and 1884) reigned consecutively in Babylon. But in 1907, L. W. King (Chronicles concerning early Bab. Kings) published new material, which showed conclusively that the Second dynasty, ruling over the 'Country of the Sea,' was at least partly, if not wholly, contemporaneous with the First and Third dynasties in Babylon. King himself and Meyer (GA2, I. ii. 339 ff. [1909]) hold that the Third (Kaššite) dynasty followed immediately on the First; and that consequently the previous estimates of the chronology of the First dynasty have to be reduced by the total duration of the Second dynasty (368 years according to List A). The scholars cited at the head of this note consider, on the other hand, that the contemporaneousness was only partial, and that there was an interval of 176 years between the close of the First dynasty and the accession of the Third. The chief data are these: King's new chronicle has proved beyond dispute (1) that Ilima-ilu, the founder of the Second dynasty, was contemporary with Samsu-iluna and Abi-ešu', the 7th and 8th Kings of the Fist dynasty; and (2) that Ea-gâmil, the last king
