DISCUSSION. The CHAIRMAN said: The learned and instructive paper to which we have just heard, deals with a subject of a very special and technical nature. There may be some present who will be prepared to criticise the methods and discuss the results laid before us. For my own part, I do not feel myself competent to do so, and can only accept Professor Kennedy's conclusions on his authority. But though the subject is a special and technical one, it is not without bearings of very general interest to all of us. In the narratives of the Bible it not unfrequently happens that what the critics call the “historicity" or "unhistoric character" of the narrative is made to depend upon the correspondence of ascertained facts with those described in the narrative. If we can be certain what the weights, measures, coins, etc., actually represent, we are able to apply this test. Such evidence is also of value sometimes as to the authenticity of a narrative. If we can ascertain whether facts of this nature (coins, measures or weights) actually correspond with the facts, we have a good deal of ground for inferring that the narrative was written by someone personally acquainted with the conditions existing at the time to which the narrative relates. The subject matter of Professor Kennedy's paper lies, therefore, at the base of many enquiries of great interest. It happens fairly often that cobwebs of criticism have to be swept away because they rest on no ascertained and positive knowledge; it is a great advantage to have such clear and definite facts as have been placed before us, and we owe Professor Kennedy an additional debt of gratitude for having so plainly told us where the evidence available was good and sufficient, and where it was only sufficient to produce varying degrees of probability. The Professor has spoken of "a bewildering variety of standards in use in Palestine. The phrase is most applicable to the conditions which prevailed not long ago in Southern India, where every district had its own measures, and to enhance the difficulty of comparison, these different measures, etc., often went by the same name. One source of difficulty in comparing different measures there arose from the fact that they were sometimes "struck” and sometimes "heaped." A "struck measure is one in which the grain or flour contained in the measure is rendered level with the top of the measure by drawing the hand or anything flat over the surface; a "heaped" measure is one in which the surface of the grain is heaped up as high as it will stand. Naturally the grain-dealers preferred to buy by the one and sell by the other measure. It will also be seen that if the measure was (as generally happens) cylindrical in shape, the greater or less the diameter of the top of the measure, the greater or less would be the conical heap which stood on the top and formed the difference between the "struck" and the "heaped" measure. It would be interesting to know whether the evidence available showed any trace of a corresponding difference in Bible times. Professor KENNEDY replied that this source of uncertainty in both aspects was found to exist. Thus the "heaped seah" or peck was estimated to contain a quarter more than the "straked seah." Mr. M. L. ROUSE said that here in England owing to the uncertainty attaching to selling dry goods by measures of capacity, we sold them, as a rule, by weight instead. With regard to the length of the cubit of Ezekiel xl, was there not evidence from chapter xli, 8, that a longer cubit than ordinary was referred to, because it speaks there of a "full reed of six great cubits"? Colonel M. A. ALVES: Regarding measures of capacity I am unable to speak; so I merely observe that as, in the Wilderness, each person's daily allowance of manna was an omer, seven pints seems to have been a very good allowance. As to weights, it may be noted that, whilst in Ezekiel xlv, 12, as in the Pentateuch, the weight of the shekel is stated to be 20 gerahs, the special "sanctuary" shekel is alluded to in the Pentateuch alone. The "king's "shekel is also mentioned in II Samuel xiv, 26. Ezekiel xxxvi to xlviii are still unfulfilled prophecy; it would seem, therefore, as if some clue to the shekel and gerah was existing somewhere, though perhaps not as yet brought to light. As with his shekel, Ezekiel's cubit is still future; and as, see Matthew xxiv, 1-2, every stone of Herod's Temple has to be thrown down, there will be nothing in it to act as a standard. As the new sanctuary shekel is to weigh the same as the old, it would seem reasonable to suppose that the new sanctuary cubit should measure the same as the old which the Children of Israel brought with them out of Egypt. Whatever its derivation, may not the word "'ämmah" have as wide a meaning as the word "ell," which varied from 27 to 54 inches ? The LECTURER replied that in Ezekiel xl, 5, the Vulgate gave the same rendering as the Septuagint: "a reed of six cubits and a handbreadth." In the present Hebrew text the word "cubit" was used with two different values side by side. In the disputed passage, it had been his wish not so much to solve the problem which the passage presented, as to point out that there was a problem. As regards the expression in Ezekiel xli, 8, in our Authorized Version, "great cubit," the word in the original could not mean "great"; the real meaning was unknown (cf. margin of Revised Version, "six cubits to the joining "). The most difficult book in the Bible from a textual point of view was the book of Ezekiel. The CHAIRMAN then proposed a hearty vote of thanks to Professor Kennedy for his most valuable and informing lecture, and this was passed by acclamation. The Meeting adjourned at 6 p.m. NOTE.—The Lecturer desires to express his grateful acknowledgment of the courtesy of the Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund in permitting the use of their blocks to illustrate certain of the weights referred to in the Lecture. 571ST ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING, HELD IN COMMITTEE ROOM B, THE CENTRAL HALL, PROFESSOR A. H. SAYCE, D.LITT., LL.D., D.D., TOOK THE CHAIR. The Minutes of the preceding Meeting were read and confirmed. The CHAIRMAN said that Dr. Pinches needed no introduction to the Members of the Victoria Institute, as he had favoured them with important addresses on several occasions. He would therefore ask him to read his paper on the Old and New Versions of the Babylonian Creation and Flood Stories. THE OLD AND NEW VERSIONS OF THE BABYLONIAN CREATION AND FLOOD STORIES-By THEOPHILUS G. PINCHE, LL.D., M.R.A.S. ORTY years have passed since the late George Smith published his Chaldean Account of Genesis, dedicated to Sir Henry Rawli ison, the great English pioneer of Assyriology. We all remember, or at least realize, what a sensation Smith's discoveries made, especially the account of the Flood, which traversed the same ground, point by point, as the Hebrew version in Genesis. It was a triumph for our self-taught countryman, and we all know, moreover, to what it led-namely, the despatch of the enterprising Museum-official to the East, first for the Daily Telegraph, and later for the trustees of the British Museum. He was favoured with a fair amount of success, for he found a fragment which was at first supposed to fill a gap of the eleventh tablet of the Gilgameš-series, which gives the story of the Floodin reality it was a portion of another version-as well as fragments of Creation-stories. His third and last trip to the nearer East, however, had fatal results, and he never saw his native land again. He had accquired, nevertheless, a large amount of chronological material, and Biblical scholars are his debtors for that as much as for his acquisitions in the realm of Babylonian tradition. ! 66 Though the two legends which Smith discovered were written in Semitic Babylonian-now known to be Akkadian-it was clear to all, from the names of the deities and other personages, that they were of non-Semitic or Sumerian origin. The Creationseries, which seems to have been written on six tablets later increased to seven, recorded how everything was at first created and brought forth by Tiawath," the sea," and Apsû, "the L'eep" or Ocean. From these came an only son, named Mummu. Other primeval deities, however, were later regarded as the children of Tiawath-Laḥmu and Laḥamu: Ansar and Kisar, the host of heaven and the host of earth; and then came Anu, the god of the heavens (with, it may be supposed, his sponse Anatum). At this point the record breaks off, but Damascius supplies the wanting portion, namely, the information that the successors of Anu were Illinos (cuneiform Illila) and Aos (ie., Ea or Aa). Of Illila, the god of the earth, the spouse was called Ninlila: and the spouse of Ea or Aa is given by Damascius as Dauke, the Dam-kina of the inscriptions. "And of Aos and Dauke," adds Damascius," was born a son called Belos, who, they say, is the fabricator of the world--the Creator." After this period, hostility arose between the gods of the heavens on the one side, and Tiawath, Apsû, ard Mummu on the other. On Apsû complaining that he had 10 peace by day or rest by night on account of the ways of the gods, their sons, they at last decided to make war upon them. The preparations for this are told at great length, and news of the plot at last reached heaven. At first it was thought that the power of Anu would be sufficient to allay Tiawath's rage, but when he tried to subdue her, he failed, and turned back. After this Nudimmud, a deity identified with Aa or Ea, sallied forth to overcome the monster, but with equal want of success. Finally Merodach, the son of Aa, was asked to be the champion of the gods, and having accepted, made a long preparation, and overcame her with the aid of his own miraculous powers and those conferred upon him by "the gods of his fathers." Having divided her body into two parts, and placed one of these as a covering for the heavens ("the waters above the firmament"), he imprisoned her followers. The spoils which he took were the Tablets of Fate held by Kingu, Tiawath's husband. With their aid, and supported by the gods who had helped him, he began to order the world anew, and decide the Fates. First of all he made a glorious abode for his father Nudimmud, built the palace E-šarra, "house of the host," a name designating the heavens, and finally constructed the strongholds of Anu, Bel, and Aa. Then came the ordering of |