140 MR. BOSCAWEx\ ON THE HISTORICAL 



correct, instead of those which are doubtful. He might have given names 

 for instance, like Methuselah and a large number of others. I must also 

 disagree with the interpretation he gives to " Nahor " ; I do not think it 

 means " the snorter," and I disagree with the statement that it is the "name 

 given to the dolphin." Again, on page 107, reference is made to the Hyksos 

 invasion. I think it would be safe to say that that invasion lasted about 400 

 years, but when it began it would be impossible accurately to determine. 

 There is strong evidence as to when it ended, but the question when it began 

 is a very difficult one to solve. Then, as to page 120, where Mr. Boscawen sums 

 up his conclusions, there is a great deal more that he could have put down, and 

 which I hope he will give us before the paper is reprinted. There are many 

 passages he might have given, — one, for instance, in reference to the most 

 characteristic act of Abram, in regard to the purchase of the field. I 

 looked in vain through the paper to find mention of tablets, such as we 

 now possess, recording sales of land, the terms of which, and even the 

 witnesses thereto are given ; this I consider would have been a very 

 important illustration, which ought to have been included in the paper. I 

 have no doubt Mr. Boscawen will rectify these omissions, and I know that 

 he can, for he will remember that I have worked with him on tablets 

 the inscriptions upon which record the sale of some of these plots of 

 land. There can be little doubt that, as Abram bought the field, it 

 was made sure to him ; and it is moderately certain that the bargain 

 or transaction which then took place was, I will not say in the Hittite 

 language, but in the most important language of the country, which was, 

 probably, the Babylonian. As to the inscriptions at the end of the pajier, 

 I will not go into them. They are more for one's private study than for 

 general discussion at a meeting like this. With regard to the remarks 

 by Professor Sayce, I would point out that he says " the name of 

 Serug may be connected with the name of Sargani or Sargon, in which 

 arii is a suffix." I must differ from Professor Sayce here, for I do not 

 think it probable. Then, as to the form of the word itself, it is very 

 important that it should be discussed ; and there are many people who 

 deny that the object, upon which the name is found, belongs to the time of 

 Sargon T. I think Professor Sayce himself is not certain about 

 the matter ; but there can be no difficulty about the spelling of the name, 

 and if it were written in Hebrew it could not be written in any other way 

 than it is written in Isaiah, l"!^"^.? — "Sargon." Of course. Professor Sayce 

 is quite right about " Kainuv, the establisher," having no connexion with 

 the Biblical Kain ; but this is probably a slip on the part of Mr. Boscawen. 

 In other respects, I think the Victoria Institute is to be congratulated on this 

 paper. If we want confirmatory information about the early statements of 

 the Bible, we must go to the Babylonian documents, and Mr. Boscawen 

 has gone to the tablets that have been dug up in Mesopotamia for it. 

 Eastern scholars generally, and especially students of the cuneiform 

 writings, care most for the text of such inscriptions as may be rescued ; 

 but the more these things are studied in a broad and liberal way — 



