194 NOTES ON LITEEATURE IN EGYPT IN THE TIME OF MOSES, 



been included in each case on a single tablet. This view I have 

 briefly explained in a recent work " The Bible and the East." 



Many of the supposed anachronisms which, according to 

 eighteenth century criticism, marked a late date in the Penta- 

 teuch writings are, by such evidence, proved not to be ana- 

 chronisms at all, but to show an intimate knowledge of contem- 

 porary civilisation on the part of the writer, and an ignorance 

 on the part of the critic, only excusable because the external 

 monumental evidence, now available, was then entirely unknown. 



Colonel Conder has added a few incidental remarks which 

 will be of interest to the reader. 



The incidents, mentioned in the 9th page of the paper, seem to 

 be those of the Mohar's journey in Palestine, supposed by Chabas 

 to belong to the time of Rameses II., and are not found in the story 

 of Saneha, who appears to be the traveller alluded to in the time 

 of Usertesen I. 



Personally, I do not believe that the alphabet existed in the 

 time of Moses, as cuneiform seems to have been the character 

 then in use. I think that Glaser has failed to satisfy specialists 

 as to the antiquity of his Arab texts. The characters can hardly 

 be as ancient judging from their forms, and the thirty-three kings 

 of the Minseans may only carry us back to about 600 B.C. 



I think also it is too positive an assertion that the Tell-el- 

 Amarna tablets are older than Moses. Dr. Winckler and Dr. 

 Zimmern in Germany have, I understand, pronounced in favour 

 of their being as late as the Hebrew conquest of Palestine, which 

 is the view I have always held, and they agree that the Hebrews 

 are often mentioned in these letters, and that Mineptah found 

 Israel inhabiting Palestine, 



Bunsen's view as to the late date of the Exodus does not agree with 

 Old Testament chronology and it rests on no monumental founda- 

 tion, but is indeed discredited by the later monumental discoveries. 



The fact of Greek letters in Egypt resembling the Etruscan is 

 only natural since the two alphabets were nearly akin, but it does 

 not establish any very great antiquity for these as the Etruscan 

 letters are not the oldest known by any means. 



Pinally, I cannot understand how Hummurabi can be placed as 

 early as 2356 B.C. The Babylonian statements place him (by 

 two separate reckonings) about 2150 B.C. These, of course, are 

 only small points not really important to the question discussed. 



