HAMILTON SCIENTIFIC ASSOCIATION. 69 



three things. Either that a later generation, looking back on the 

 vistas of the past, was deceived bj- some optical illusion which 

 which makes two hill-tops that are really separated by spacious 

 valleys seem to stand quite close to one another ; or else that there 

 may possibly have iDeen two patriarclis named Jacob who lived at 

 periods centuries apart from one another, one of them the grandson 

 of Abraham, the other the father of Joseph, and that- a later 

 tradition merged these two individuals into one ; or lastly, that 

 Abraham did indeed flourish about the year 1900 B. C, but that 

 his association with Khammurabi is apocryphal. I need hardly say 

 that the acceptance of any one of these hypotheses would be merel}^ 

 bringing grist to the mill of the modern critics of the Pentateuch." 

 Notwithstanding his aversion to the higher critics Hommel finds it 

 necessary to alter the account of Melchizedek as we have it in Gen. 

 xiv. and to suppose the importation of a Babylonian document ; so 

 that even the straight path of the archaeologist is beset with 

 difficulties. 



Prof. Paton of Hartford Theological Seminary also regards the 

 chapter as a genuine piece of history. I,ike Hommel he has a 

 difficulty with the dates, but he proposes a different solution. His 

 words are as follows : " It is now generally admitted that Amraphel 

 is the same as Khammurabi, the sixth king of the first dynasty of 

 Babylon. Arioch is probably the same as Eri-aku of the monu- 

 ments. Whether the other kings are mentioned in the Babylonian 

 records is much disputed. Pinches identifies all the names with 

 names on the monuments, as also does Sayce, but all these readings 

 have been called in question." Paton deals witli the chronological 

 difficulty as follows: "We know from recent archaeological dis- 

 coveries that the Aramsean migration did not occur as earl}? as 

 2230 B. C, the date to whch Abram must l)e assigned by his 

 synchronism with Khammurabi. With our present knowledge of 

 the ancient orient it must be pronounced incredible that an an- 

 cestor of Aramaean Israel should have lived in Canaan as early as 

 the time of Khammurabi. Does not this prove, then, that the 

 narrative of Abram's conflict with Chedorlaomer in Gen. xiv. is un- 

 historical ? No, unless it can be established that the traditional 



