The following communication has been received from the Rev. R. C. OULTON, B.D., Rector of Glynn, co. Antrim :— I have read with great interest and pleasure Mr. Fleay's valuable paper on the above subject. His method of reconciling the discrepancies between certain statements in Kings and the researches of Assyriologists, as well as other passages in the sacred historical writings, seems to me ingenious, and, to a considerable extent, well grounded. May I be permitted to offer some criticism on his treatment of 2 Kings xv, 30? This thirtieth verse he gives up as untenable for the following reasons:-1st. "Hoshea did not obtain the throne by an independent conspiracy, but was appointed by Tiglath, who had smitten Pekah," according to Assyrian annals. 2nd. "The twentieth year of Jotham is an impossible date; for Jotham reigned only 16 years." In expressing my opinion that the rejection of the verse in question is too drastic a method, I would tentatively suggest another way of meeting the difficulty. In the first place, it does not appear to me that the verse necessarily implies that Hoshea got possession of the throne "by an independent conspiracy." After the murder of Pekah, there may have been an interregnum for some years (as the country was probably in a disturbed state) until he was recognised as reigning king by Tiglath Pileser. Secondly, the date given namely, the twentieth year of Jotham, may fairly be taken to apply to the time not when Hoshea came to the throne, but rather to the time of the conspiracy. Thirdly, the contradiction between twenty and sixteen years as the period of the reign of Jotham may be accounted for in the following way :-There may have been some uncertainty as to the exact duration of this monarch's reign owing to the want of agreement as to the precise time, in the original Jewish Chronicles, from which the writers of the Book of Kings copied. There are evidently marks of a different hand in verses 32, 33, and by no means have we a right to assume that the same writer penned all the historic events recorded in the fifteenth chapter. One general remark I would make, and it is this-that we ought not to take it for granted that where there is a discrepancy between the Assyrian monuments and the Jewish records, that the former are invariably accurate. ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING.* CAPTAIN G. P. HEATH, R.N., IN THE CHAIR. The Minutes of the last Meeting were read and confirmed. NOTES ON THE THICKNESS OF THE LUCERNE GLACIER OF THE POST-PLIOCENE PERIOD. By Professor EDWARD HULL, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S. (Secretary). HE valley of the Lake of Lucerne, or as it is better known, the Vierwaldstätter See (Lake of the Four-forest cantons) is unsurpassed in Switzerland for the beauty and grandeur of its scenery. Its lofty banks, clothed with forest, give place to mural cliffs of limestone too steep for trees to grow on, but diversified by terraces of richest green verdure; while the waters of the lake itself present a sparkling surface of bluish-green tint reflecting the azure of the cloudless sky. Following the direction of the upper lake into the valley of the Reuss, you behold the landscape bounded by lofty mountain peaks and ridges, rising higher and higher till culminating in the far distance amongst the snowy summits of the Bernese Oberland. Here the pure white cone of Finsteraarhorn pierces the sky to a height of 14,026 feet above the level of the sea; farther on extend the more massive group of St. Gotthard heights. It is hard to conceive that such a scene of verdure and beauty as that which we survey immediately around us from the terraces of the Burgenstock or the Seelisberg Hotels was once enveloped in snow and ice; that an immense glacier occupied the lake lying so placidly at a depth of about 1,500 feet beneath our feet, and not only filled the channel to the level of its surface, but reached * Monday, May 9th, 1904. |