156 THEOPHILUS G. P^CHES, LL.D., M.E.A.S._, ON THE 



700 B.C., much later than any date which they could assign for the 

 present Deluge Tablet. 



With regard to the question as to the source from whence the 

 water of the Flood came, it was quite clear that no amount of rain 

 could by itself account for it. If, however, they supposed that there 

 was a considerable subsidence over a large area of the land surface 

 of the world, and that the sea rushed in, followed by the rising of 

 the land again later, then the Flood in one sense would be merely 

 local. Yet such an event would certainly give rise to a succession 

 of gigantic waves in the oceans, which would sweep round the entire 

 world, and might supply the evidence of sudden devastation, alluded 

 to by a former speaker, as shown by many coastlines. Professor 

 Delitzsch, in his Babel and Bible, regards the Genesis account of the 

 Flood as derived from the Babylonian, and he said that the 

 Babylonians divided their history into two great periods, the one 

 before and the other after the Flood. Then he adds a remark which 

 is quite incompatible with this, viz., that Babylon was in quite a 

 peculiar sense the land of deluges, being exposed to terrible floods of 

 a special kind, due to cyclones and tornadoes. But it is clear that if 

 the Babylonians were continually having floods, they would not be 

 likely to date their history from the Flood. Whilst in floods of that 

 description, a big ship like the Ark would be a veritable death-trap, 

 seeing that it had neither rudder nor steam. Every one remembered 

 the story of the great cyclone of Samoa, from which the " Calliope " 

 was only able to escape because she possessed such powerful 

 engines that she could make her way out to sea in the very teeth 

 of the hurricane. 



Dr. Pinches then replied fully to the comments and the vote of 

 thanks which had been given : — 



I am glad to see Mr. Rouse back again at a meeting of the 

 Institute, and to hear his remarks upon the paper which I have just 

 read. I do not remember having said anything with regard to the 

 Babylonian Noah and his slave- wives, nor have I ever written upon 

 the subject ; and in any case I should feel inclined to doubt that 

 rendering (for salat-ia, "my kinswomen," or the like). With 

 reference to Istar and mankind, her children, I cannot believe 

 that that goddess is the same as Eve. The derivation of the name 

 and its connection with Isis (late Egyptian Ise for an earlier Iset) 

 and Ishah, the Hebrew for " woman," present serious difficulties, 



