138 MR. BOSCAWEN ON THE HISTOKICAL 



Mr. D. Howard (V.-Pres. Chem. Soc), writes :— "If at page 120, line 17, 

 the words ' Attributed by these records to Khamrourabi ' were inserted, it 

 would make the author's meaning clearer. The particular form of vanity of 

 claiming the credit of another's victories, indicated here, is common enough 

 in modern bulletins^ 



" Abram and Terah did not go alone to Haran, they no doubt took many 

 followers, and it is, therefore, not to be wondered at if we find among them 

 the corrupt worship of the inhabitants of Ur in Haran, and Abram's further 

 migration was sure to enable him to escape more effectually the corruptions 

 of the new settlement at Haran ; we find strong evidence that Laban's 

 family were far gone from the primitive faith, and many will suppose that 

 their followers were more so. 



" I take it the author's argument is that the national habit of mind which 

 is evidenced in the expression he quotes (top of page 115), is the very same 

 one that degenerated into the Sabsean false worship. Certainly Job shows 

 Ijroof of ' observation of the stars,' and so did the Sabaean idolaters, and the 

 fact deserves to be noted." 



Also letters to the same eff'ect from Canon Gibson and others, including one 

 with the remark, " It is interesting to notice that, on p. 99, Aban Samu, ' the 

 blue st07ie,' derives its meaning from Aban (px) Samu (D'Oi:') ' Heaven 

 stone.' Heaven stone, i.e., ' sky ' (or ' sea-blue coloured) stone,' showing the 

 use of the word Heaven, as in Gen. i. for our firmament or ' sky.' But 

 can it be proved that Aban Samu and Qr\Wr] 73K are identical ? " 



The Chairman (Rev. Eobinson Thornton, D.D., V.P.).— We have to 

 thank Mr. Boscawen for his able and interesting paper, and also Professor 

 Sayce and those authors who have so kindly sent comments thereon. 

 Since Professor Sayce criticises Mr. Boscawen 's dates, it is clear that 

 he agrees with his facts. We are very much indebted to Mr. Boscawen 

 for the proof he has given, in this paper, of the correctness of the Scrip- 

 tures. We know very well that the Scriptures were given, not in order to 

 furnish us with a history of the Akkadians or Babylonians, but to instruct 

 us in the grand scheme of salvation ; and therefore we do not expect 

 definite history or any regular chronological system ; but we should expect, 

 a priori, from the Divine Being, that where we have any history given to 

 us it should be quite correct. Now, it is proved by reference to the ancient 

 Egyptian and other monuments, especially some of those that have lately 

 been disinterred, that where statements on the points to which they relate 

 are put before us in the Book of Revelation they are absolutely correct. 

 After the way in which we have been assailed from all sides, it is refreshing 

 to find that the historical argument, as alleged against the Bible, must be 

 dropped : for, wherever we compare the Scriptural statement with the monu- 

 mental records of the earlier nations, we find that statement proved to be 

 accurate. As regards Chedorlaomer, or, as the Septuagint gives the name, 

 XoSoWoyonop, it is worthy of remark that the late Dr. Arnold, who did not 

 always insist on Scripture being interpreted in a literal manner, referred to 

 this passage as containing real and definite history. That was fifty years 

 ago. While, however, many agree with Arnold's view, some may hold a 



