MA TORE 
517 
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 1902. 
LEGENDS OF PALESTINE AND ARABIA. 
Theology and Ethics of the Hebrews. By Archibald 
Duff, M.A., LL.D., B.D., Professor of Old Testament 
Theology, Yorkshire College, Bradford. Pp. xvii+ 304. 
(London : John C. Nimmo, Ltd., 1902.) 
Syria and Palestine. By Lewis Bayles Paton, Ph.D. 
With Five Maps. Pp. xxxvi+302. (London: John 
C. Nimmo, Ltd., 1902). Both in the ‘Semitic Series.” 
Each 5s. net. 
HE increasing number of popular books on early 
Semitic history and sociology marks the ever- 
widening interest taken in this branch of scientific 
research, especially as far as the results of modern Old 
Testament criticism are concerned. The writer of a 
popular handbook undertakes a serious responsibility ; it 
is for him to weigh carefully the arguments for and 
against all important theories, and to set before the 
general reader a fair and unbiassed account of what he 
considers to be the certain and indubitable results of the 
labours of scholars. In all matters of Biblical criticism 
he must hold a middle course between the servile accept- 
ance of traditional belief on the one hand, and a system 
of drastic and monotonous emendation on the other. 
Above all must he keep himself severely aloof from 
ephemeral hypotheses, for he is writing for the uncritical 
layman and not for the discriminating expert. 
Dr. Duffs book on the theology and ethics of the 
Hebrews seems hardly to fulfil all the above requirements. 
The first section opens with the period of Hebrew history 
which begins with the fifteenth century B.C., and describes 
the Exodus from Egypt to Sinai. Then follows what is, to 
say the least of it, an unsatisfactory explanation of the 
episode of the Tables of the Law. According to Dr. Duff, 
“then or thereabouts two slabs were brought down from 
the heights. There were strange markings upon them, 
crystalline, fossil, or otherwise” (p. 9). Of the three 
possibilities, the last is certainly the most probable, as 
neither crystalline nor fossil markings are likely to be 
mistaken for writing, and as the mountain traditionally 
regarded as Sinai is of granite, it is hardly probable that 
fossils would be found there. However, Dr. Duff pro- 
ceeds with his explanation: “There arose in time a 
sacred formula connected with this relic, whereby they 
called their god 
“©*The Almighty Yahweh who sits 
Throned upon the winged creatures.’ 
“This seems to suggest that the seeming hieroglyphic 
figures on the slabs were fossils or else crystalline forms 
resembling winged creatures. Therefore the people 
called them ‘ Kroobs,’ 7.2. Griffins (Tpdy).” The con- 
nection of Dr. Duff’s “‘ Kroobs ” (which in the traditional 
transliteration is cherub) with Ppdy, has been given up by 
the Oxford Hebrew Dictionary (Clarendon Press, 1892, 
p- 500). That such supposed fossil markings on granite 
could be mistaken for “hieroglyphic figures,” or crystal- 
line markings for “ winged creatures” or “ Kroobs,” are 
NO. 1717, VOL. 66] 
explanations harder to understand than the difficulty 
which they are devised to solve. 
Dr. Duff inclines to the opinion that the divine name, 
Yahweh, is a causative incipient from the root awah, 
z.e. the god who caused rain to fall and thereby brought 
life and all things into being (p. 11). This is certainly 
possible, and appears to be as good an explanation as 
the other plausible view that Yahweh is the Kal of Lawak 
(=hayah), z.e. “He Who Is.” 
When Dr. Duff reaches the third part of his book, 
wherein he describes the teachings of the prophets, he 
stands on firmer ground, and appears to know his subject 
better. Naturally, he begins with the caustic utterances 
of Amos against the luxury of Israel, and his warnings 
of the Assyrian approach ; and, with the exception of a 
passage of “fine writing” on the first page, his részmé 
of this prophet is a good one. In the chapter on Hosea, 
which follows, the author has apparently been unable to 
make up his mind about a theory which, if it were true, 
would profoundly modify our conception of early Arabian 
and Hebrew history. On p. 61 he says: “Events on the 
Upper Nile or in Arabian mucur (szc) now left a southern 
prince So or Sewe (Sabako?) free to turn again to plots 
in the Asiatic direction”; but, in spite of this leaning 
towards the heresies of Dr. Winckler, the author in- 
clines to the more usual view of the relations between 
Israel and Egypt at this time. He is certainly to be 
congratulated on not having gone over entirely to what 
on the face of it seems a possible theory, but which in 
reality has less in its favour than is at first sight 
apparent. 
Taken as a whole, Dr. Duff’s book will be found use- 
ful, and though the author’s style is at times somewhat 
tedious, his matter has been well arranged, and the idea 
of the analysis of the ‘‘J” and “E” portions of the Old 
Testament at the end is an excellent one. 
In the second of the two books under review Dr- 
Paton has endeavoured, as he says in his introduction, 
to “ gather up the results of the most recent explorations, 
and combining them with the facts already known from 
the Bible and from other ancient sources, to present them 
in a clear and popular form.” His book deals with the 
history of Palestine and its relations with Egypt and 
Mesopotamia from the earliest times down to Cyrus, and 
to this end the author has laid under contribution a 
large quantity of material both from Egyptian and 
Assyro-Babylonian sources, though apparently he has 
little first-hand knowledge of the original texts. A wider 
understanding of the languages of the peoples with which 
he deals would have prevented him from falling into 
certain errors that are to be found in his book. For 
instance, he has adopted the chronological system of 
Lehmann, and although he accepts Assurbanipal’s dating 
for Kudurnankhundi, who invaded Babylonia 1635 years 
before Assurbanipal’s time (p. 30), yet, apparently only 
on the ground of its extreme antiquity, he rejects 
Nabonidus’s date for Naram-Sin, who is said by the 
former to have reigned 3200 years before (p.x.). Again, 
he seems unable wholly to accept the truth about the 
“* Chedorlaomer” texts, and sums up his review of 
the facts with the words, “It still remains doubtful, 
therefore, whether Chedorlaomer is mentioned in the 
Z 
