himself the certainty of such a verdict. However vicious a man's life may have been, exemption in the hereafter could be purchased at any time from the priest." In all this we note that the poor and the common folk had no share. The most elaborate process of embalmment cost about £250—of our money. For the poor there was no house of the dead, with its paintings, with its food, its magic charms and ushebti figures. The middle classes could only rent from the priests a great common tomb where the mummies were piled up like cordwood. The toiling millions could only bury their dead in the gravel and sand of the desert margin for the sun to mummify, looking longingly at the luxury enjoyed by the rich, sometimes with a touching pathos burying, at the door of some great man's tomb, a rude statuette of their lost one in the hope that he might gain a few crumbs from the rich man's mortuary table. It would hardly be right for me to conclude this paper without stating that I am aware that a school of criticism exists which dismisses in a summary manner the Biblical events I have tried to correlate with the days of the XVIIIth dynasty. According to such the stories of the Pentateuch are not contemporary history and contain only a bare substratum of facts. The plagues of Egypt were only such visitations as that land is ordinarily subject to, magnified into miraculous proportions, together with all the other incidents of the sojourn in Egypt, to bring glory and prominence to the Hebrew race. Even the Exodus was only of minor importance but was swollen to the proportions in which it is recorded for the same purpose. It is even stated that writing was not known in the time of Moses, ignoring altogether the evidence of the Tel el Amarna tablets and the Code of Hammurabi. So we are carried on many centuries until the return from the captivity for the compilation of the earlier books of the Bible and are asked to believe that as history they have but little more value than the traditional lore of other nations. Professor Eric Peet, in his recently published book "Egypt and the Old Testament," says: "In other words our present Pentateuch was compiled not earlier than the fifth century B.C. and contains no material written down earlier than the ninth century except possibly certain laws and a few fragments such as the song of Deborah. It follows at once from this that practically the whole contents of these books as we have them were written down only long after the times at which they were enacted." It is satisfactory to know that Sir Flinders Petrie, reviewing this book in the October part of "Ancient Egypt," writes: "It is to be regretted that the valuable constructive work which the author wrote on Italy fourteen years ago has been succeeded by a devotion to the barren field of destructive criticism. This obsession of the Biblical critics depends on verbal questions rather than matters of fact and is too often accompanied by facile mis-statement. On page 98 the marriage of Joseph into the family of a priest of Ra, is a later colouring' because 'all we know of the Hyksos occupation of Egypt makes such an. admission very difficult.' What we do know is that Apepa II favoured the Egyptian worship by making columns and gates of copper to adorn the temple of Bubastis. Priests were then by no means out of fashion. It is said that the Biblical narrative states that Pharaoh was drowned. No such statement appears in the narrative." 6 We cherish the hope that some day the records of this wonderful country will yield confirmation in an overwhelming manner to the Bible narratives. Meanwhile we hold fast to their historicity and value them for this as well as for the spiritual truths they convey. DISCUSSION. On the conclusion of the reading of the paper, the CHAIRMAN proposed a hearty vote of thanks to Mr. Dale, which was heartily responded to, with applause. The lights were then turned down, and Mr. DALE explained a large number of very interesting views of Egyptian excavations and objects of art; these attracted very much interest. The CHAIRMAN again thanked Mr. Dale, and referring to the large numbers present, he mentioned how Mr. Dale had helped the Victoria Institute by taking a subject of present-day interest which had attracted such a large audience, who were evidently much interested. He also said what a very good beginning had been made in the programme of lectures for this session; he welcomed the many visitors who were present, and invited them to apply to become Members or Associates. THE 659TH ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING, HELD IN COMMITTEE ROOM B, THE CENTRAL HALL, JAMES W. THIRTLE, ESQ., LL.D., M.R.A.S., IN THE CHAIR. The Minutes of the previous Meeting were read, confirmed, and signed, and the HONORARY SECRETARY announced the following elections:Life Associate: W. Wardle Sales, Esq. Associates: Mrs. Maude Stokes, R. G. Lundy, Esq., I.S.O., Miss Ellen Rouse, Rev. Lucy T. Ayres, Rev. Thomas Coyle, Rev. Stanley White, B.D., Rev. C. W. Norwood, B.D., Rev. G. W. Ridout, D.D., F.R.G.S., Rev. Charles Boutflower, M.A., and the Rev. Prof. J. H. Webster, D.D. "6 The CHAIRMAN then introduced the Rev. President M. G. Kyle, D.D., LL.D., to read his paper on The Problem of the Pentateuch from the Standpoint of the Archæologist." THE PROBLEM OF THE PENTATEUCH FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE ARCHEOLOGIST. By President MELVIN GROVE KYLE, D.D., LL.D., Xenia Theological Seminary, St. Louis, U.S.A. A NY adequate consideration of the problem of the Pentateuch must do two things, must define the exact limits of the problem and must present a satisfactory solution of the problem. The old law of rhetoric that the first step in argument is to define the terms has never been abrogated, though it has fallen too much into desuetude. Much waste energy of controversy over the problem of the Pentateuch and other Biblical problems of to-day is due to the fact that the disputants are not disputing about exactly the same things. So, exact definition of the limits of the problem of the Pentateuch is a necessary preliminary to its adequate consideration. Then, any consideration of the problem of the Pentateuch that falls short of a satisfactory solution of the problem does not get us on very far. Controversial literature has its uses, but they are rather limited in scope; limited defence operations that protect one's own position, and offensive operations that meet the enemy and perhaps vanquish him, but both fall short of any work of reconstruction. A life of controversy, merely slaying giants, may leave the victor master of the field, but with the original problem over which the conflict was raged still unsolved. The archæologist is a man ever seeking, not simply to discuss problems nor to vanquish opponents, but to solve problems. And so the consideration of the problem of the Pentateuch from the standpoint of the archæologist must find a satisfactory solution of the problem. The standpoint of the archeologist before a problem is that of the diagnostician; he takes things exactly as he finds them and studies the case as it presents itself to him, especially in all its peculiarities. He analyses and classifies, and then, when the induction and classification is complete, draws his conclusion from the facts and finds no greater value in the conclusion than is shown in the evidence. If there be striking and puzzling peculiarities in the ruin-there a tower, here a pit, and yonder a beautiful decoration-he notes these at the outset, that he may take them especially into account in the induction and classification. So the problem of the Pentateuch from the standpoint of the archæologist is the problem of the Pentateuch as it is, especially the problem presented by its striking and puzzling peculiarities. The Pentateuch is a part of the literary remains of antiquity, and, according to archæological methods, these remains must be viewed, as they now are, in the form in which they have come to us. The archæologist always reverses the historical method he begins his work at the top of the mound, the surface, and goes down to the bottom; he begins at the present goal which history has reached and traces the history back over the course to its starting-point. Thus, he accepts the Penta-. teuchal literature as a finished product; analyses and classifies its elements, and from these elements and their inter-relation attempts to learn how the literature came into its present form. Most of the controversy over the problem of the Pentateuch has been concerning its authorship and the time and method of its composition. These things are very important; it may, perhaps, be conceded that they are most important, but it does not follow from this that the immediate consideration of them is the best way to seek the solution of the problem of the Penta teuch. The porch is not the most important part of a house, but it is the most convenient way of approach to enter and examine the house. So, some questions other than of authorship and time of composition may afford us a better, and more convenient, form of approach to enter into a solution of the problem of the Pentateuch. And these other questions are concerning just those puzzling peculiarities of the Pentateuch which stand out when, from the standpoint of the archæologists, we pause before these remains of the literature of antiquity as it is. In the Pentateuch we have an interesting narrative and a most remarkable collection of laws, and, strange to say, the narrative and the laws are mingled together; in fact, the laws are inserted in the narrative in such fashion that they might be entirely lifted out and the story itself would suffer no break. That is a peculiar arrangement; laws and narrative are not usually so mingled together. Then the laws are fragmentary; there are some large groups and many small groups, and little fragments of law turning up most unexpectedly in the midst of the story at any point. Some of the laws, also, are repeated and inserted at different places, both among the laws and in the course of the narrative. Sometimes the repetition is in about the same words, and sometimes it is considerably altered. The laws also themselves seem at times indiscriminately mixed; a law assessing the penalty of criminal conduct comes in the midst of ritual directions for worship, or a rubric is found in the midst of criminal laws. Where else in all literature do we find laws mingled together in such fashion? The style also is very different in different parts of the Pentateuch. Some have made much of this fact and deduced from it alone the solution of the whole problem, and others have strangely resented the very suggestion of different styles. But certainly no one can read the Ten Commandments and the list of judgments following, so judicial and sententious, then read the most verbose directions for the detection of leprosy and, last of all, the incitement to patriotism in the speeches of Deuteronomy, and say that they are all in the same style! We cannot help exclaiming here that they ought not to be in the same style, even though from the same author; but it is the fact only that we need to notice now. Last of all, there are historical peculiarities, not to say difficulties, that attract attention and demand explanation. It |