suppositions are true, or that early Israelitish culture ever came into contact with that of Assyria or Babylonia before the time of Ashur-nasir-pal III-say, 876 B.C.-when this king conquered Carchemish. Undoubtedly the "land of Shin'ar" was identified. with Sumer in the days of Daniel, at the beginning of the sixth century B.C.; but I believe that that was a late and a mistaken identification. I suggest that "Shin'ar" is the same as the country called "Sangar" or "Shankhar" in the early Egyptian and Babylonian inscriptions, and was situated to the north-east of Phoenicia, not far from Aleppo. Further, the Tower of Babel was in this country, and not in Babylonia. Note that the tower was never finished, and that the city which the builders intended to found was never built (see Gen. xi, 8); it cannot therefore be identified with Babylon; the names must not be confounded. The native and Biblical name of Babylon was Bab-el," the "Gate of God"; the name of the tower was Babel," connected with root" Belbel," meaning "confusion."

In Isaiah xi, 11, the name "Shin'ar" occurs in a list which includes Assyria, Egypt, Pathros, Cush, Elam, Hamath, and "the coast-lands of the sea." If juxtaposition signifies anything, the association here is rather with Hamath and the Mediterranean coast. Shin'ar," in Joshua vii, 21, and in Zech. v, 11, is quite non-committal, and the only other references to the name in the Bible are in the book of Genesis. The name does not occur in the Babylonian or Assyrian inscriptions as applying to any part of Babylonia.

66

As for Nimrod's kingdom, in Gen. x, 10, "Erech" is supposed to be the Assyrian Arku or Urku, the modern Warka, half-way between Hilla and Korna, a place of great celebrity in the cuneiform records. The identification of "Akkad" with " Agade " is very doubtful, and Calneh has not been identified at all. The Bible references associate Calneh with the districts north and east of Phoenicia. I am inclined to think that "Nimrod " may be another name for "Shulgi " or " Dungi," to whom Professor Pinches has referred in this paper.

As for the birthplace of Abraham, I am convinced that it was not the great city of Ur, of which we have been hearing. It is carefully distinguished throughout the Bible as "Ur-casdim," apparently to

66

accentuate this fact. Ur-casdim" could not have been far from Haran, because Nahor, who remained behind, is shown in Gen. xxiv, 10, to have dwelt in Aram-Naharaim ("Naharin," between the Orontes and the Euphrates), and Bethuel, his son, and Laban, his grandson, as dwelling in Paddan-Aram, not far from Haran (Gen. xxvii, 43; xxviii, 10; and xxix, 4). There is an ancient Hebrew tradition to the effect that Ur-casdim was in this district and not near the mouth of the Euphrates.

I would point out that all the sympathies of early Israel, and indeed of their whole history, were with Egypt. They were consistently pro-Egyptian throughout, and anti-Semitic. In view of the German school of criticism and its insistence on the Babylonian origin of the Mosaic accounts of the Creation, the Flood, and of the religious and civil codes of Israel, it is most important to examine this question. As I have stated, I am convinced that the facts are all against this theory. The history and the religious and civil organization of Israel, and their general culture, were all recorded in the books of the Bible up to the time of the division into two kingdoms, just as we have them now, many centuries before the Israelites could have learned anything from Babylon or Assyria.

Mr. SIDNEY COLLETT said he was interested to note that so high an authority as Professor Pinches held the view that the Tower of Babel was not built with the idea of its top reaching Heaven, as the Authorized Version of Gen. xi, 4, would seem to imply. The more literal rendering of that passage is, I believe," whose top is in the heavens."

There is also a very similar expression in Deut. ix, 1, where Moses' speaking of the Anakims, Israel's enemies, said, according to our Authorized Version, they had: "Cities great, and fenced up to heaven." But here, again, a better rendering of the Hebrew is, I believe," Cities great and fortified into the heavens."

Now, there is in the New Testament a passage which throws a striking and solemn light upon these otherwise mysterious words, viz., Eph. vi, 12, where we read that and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in

we wrestle not against flesh

high places "—or, as it would be better translated, "wicked spirits' or "spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenlies."

Now, seeing that Satan is "the prince of the power of the air' (Eph. ii, 2), it is not strange that his emissaries should also occupy that region. So that it would appear that the men who built the Tower of Babel were deliberately seeking an alliance with these unseen hosts of wickedness in open defiance against Almighty God!

66

Similarly, Moses appears to refer to the same kind of thing when he spoke of the cities of the Anakims being "fortified into the heavens"; thus reminding the Israelites of the solemn fact that the victories they had over their enemies, could only have been achieved by the power of God working with them, as, indeed, Deut. ix, 3, clearly shows. This is remarkably illustrated by the fact that whenever Israel were at war with their enemies, if they were, through disobedience, out of touch with God, they were invariably defeated, however great their numbers were. While, on the other hand, when, owing to their obedience to God's laws, they were enjoying His presence and favour, they were always victorious, however small their numbers were! And it is doubtless to this great fact that the Apostle refers in Eph. vi, 11, where we are warned to put on the whole armour of God, that we may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

The AUTHOR'S reply: As the answering on the spur of the moment of unexpected questions and comments is always exceedingly unsatisfactory, I make no attempt to reproduce what I replied when I read the above paper, but write my remarks on the discussion independently of my spoken words.

Mr. Theodore Roberts has spoken about the numerous steps leading to the upper stages of the temple-towers. It is doubtful, however, if sacrifices were offered on these high platforms. On the highest stage of the Tower of Babel there seems to have been a chamber wherein, probably, ceremonies were performed and the god was supposed to descend and rest. The altar below, whereon young animals were sacrificed, was seemingly quite near to the ground-level, whilst that where large and full-grown animals were sacrificed was on the ground itself.

There is no doubt as to the nobility of Abraham, to which Eupolemus refers, and he and his family may well have carried Babylonian tablets to Palestine and to Egypt. With regard to the sun being the offspring of the moon, this idea comes from that of progressive perfectionment or evolution, and, as we know, in reckoning time, the ancient Semites regarded a day as consisting of "evening and morning," and the ruler of the night did not, therefore, follow the ruler of the day, but preceded him.

The contrast between polytheism and Hebrew monotheism was naturally great, but in the absence of a revelation the Babylonians had no other course open to them but to continue the faith in "lords and gods many," as handed down to them by their forefathers. The suggestion of the Rev. J. J. B. Coles, that the Tower of Babel is described as having its top " with the heavens," and not "in the heavens," is interesting. We know that the Babylonians sculptured the signs of the zodiac on their boundary-stones, or, rather, landgrants (which seem to have been deposited in the temples), but that their temple-towers had something analogous is an entirely new idea. The tower at Babylon, though very high, was far from being of excessive tallness-it was doubtless higher than the towers of other Babylonian cities, that is all.

The text of Gen. xi reads bashshamayim, "in the heavens." If the signs of the zodiac were referred to, we ought to have a different word-probably bammasaroth, which would mean "in the zodiacal signs." Hebrew specialists, however, will be better able to pronounce an opinion upon the alternative readings.

I am greatly gratified by the kind words with which Mr. G. B. Michell introduces his remarks. Assyriologists, however, will be greatly startled at the suggestions which he makes. That Babel should not be Babylon, as hitherto universally believed, seems to me to be unthinkable. Indeed, we have only to turn to the fourteenth chapter of Genesis to find the proof of Abraham's sojourn in Babylonia. There we read of Amraphel, king of Shinar, Arioch, king of Ellasar (âl Larsa, "the city of Larsa "), Chedorlaomer, king of Elam (of the family or the families of the Elamite "Kudurites "), and Tidal, king of Nations, generally regarded as Media, but the royal name is probably one similar to the well-known Tudhul'a of the Hittites. All these were nations in alliance Ellasar being in

Babylonia, and therefore part of Shin'ar at a time when Elam was overlord in Babylonia, and Amraphel, of Amorite origin, exercised the overlordship of the Cities of the Plain. And how is it possible that Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, all of them Babylonian names, should not have been cities in Babylonia that country from which Nimrod went out into Assyria-Assyria, which had the same language, the same gods, and the same literature as Babylonia itself? Notwithstanding the plausibility of the contention that the Tower of Babel was not at Babylon, it is worthy of note that it was the people who were scattered abroad from thence upon the face of the earth who left off to build the city. It is not said that the tower was not ultimately completed, nor is it said that those who remained did not continue to build houses there when they wanted them. The only other Babylon known to me is the old Roman fortress so named at Cairo, but this could not in any case be regarded as east of Palestine.

With regard to the height of the Tower of Babel, there is no indication in Gen. xi that this had anything to do with a project to invade Heaven. The real reason is clearly stated-they wanted to have a rallying-point, but the very monument which was to have supplied it, proved to be something with a contrary effect, for “from thence they were scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.” But Mr. Sidney Collett's contentions are interesting and well marshalled.

In reply to Mr. Hoste, our Hon. Secretary, the cylinders of Nabonidus are written in Semitic Babylonian, otherwise Akkadian, which is regarded as being the term applied to the Semites of Babylonia and their language. Its vocabulary is probably closest akin to that of the Hebrews, but its verbal conjugations are more numerous and probably, also, more regular. Sumerian differed in that it was an agglutinative language, but the connection with Chinese, which has been claimed for it, seems to me to be doubtful.

I am much obliged to my audience for their interest in a somewhat special subject. This, however, was unavoidable, for lectures upon excavations, no matter where carried on, must be of a very special nature. Unfortunately I was unable to read even half of what I have written, otherwise there would have been more variety in what I had to say. The translations of the religious texts, however, may