The lower limit is determined by the Exodus, which is usually assigned (as it must be if Ex. 111 is genuine) to the reign of Merneptah of the Nineteenth Egyptian dynasty (c. 1234-1214 B.C.). Allowing a sufficient period for the sojourn of Israel in Egypt, we come back to about the middle of the millennium as the approximate time when the family left Palestine for that country. The Hebrew chronology assigns nearly the same date as above to Abraham, but a much earlier one for the Exodus (c. 1490), and reduces the residence of the patriarchs in Canaan to 215 years; since, however, the chronological system rests on artificial calculations (see pp. 135 f., 234), we cannot restrict our survey to the narrow limits which it assigns to the patriarchal period in Palestine. Indeed, the chronological uncertainties are so numerous that it is desirable to embrace an even wider field than the five centuries mentioned above.[1]
In the opinion of a growing and influential school of writers, this period of history has been so illumined by
- ↑ Thus the Exodus is sometimes (in defiance of Ex. 111) put back to c. 1450 B.C. (Hommel, ET, x. [1899], , 210 ff.; Orr, POT, 422 ff.); while Eerdmans would bring it down to c. 1125 B.C. (Vorgeschichte Israels, 74; Exp. 1908, Sept. 204). Joseph is by some (Marquart, Wi. al.) identified with a minister of Amenophis IV. (c. 1380-1360), by Eerdmans with a Semitic ruler at the very end of the Nineteenth dynasty (c. 1205). See p. 501. f.
the Second dynasty, was an older contemporary of a certain Kaššite (king?), Kaštiliaš. Now, Kaštiliaš is the name of the 3rd king of the Kaššite dynasty; and the question is whether this Kaštiliaš is to be identified with the contemporary of Ea-gâmil. Th.-Dangin, etc., answer in the affirmative, with the result stated above. King opposes the identification, and thinks the close of the Second dynasty coincides with a gap in the list of Kaššite kings (8th to 15th), where the name of Kaštiliaš may have stood. Meyer accepts the synchronism of Ea-gâmil with the third Kaššite king; but gets rid of the interregnum by a somewhat arbitrary reduction of the duration of the Second dynasty to about 200 years. For fuller information, the reader is referred to the lucid note in Dri. Gen.7 XXVII. ff. (with lists).—King believes that his date for Ḫammurabi (c. 1958-1916) facilitates the identification of that monarch with the Amraphel of Gn. 14 (see p. 257 f. below), by bringing the interval between Abraham and the Exodus into nearer accord with the biblical data; but in view of the artificial character of the biblical chronology (v.s.), it is doubtful if any weight whatever can be allowed to this consideration.,
