50 REV. JOHN URQUaART, ON THE BEARING OF RECENT 



captured in the cave of Makkedah. Two of the kings mentioned 

 by Joshua belonged to the cities mentioned in the tablets, Gezer and 

 Hazor, and one bears the name Jabin in both accounts. 



Japhra is called in the tablets King of Gezer, but in the Bible 

 King of Lachish ; on the other hand, we find that Lachish and Gezer 

 were in intimate relations, for when Gezer was attacked the King of 

 Lachish came to its succour. (Jos. x, 32.) 



Then again we find that this people destroyed — at least it is 

 supposed to be the same people — this very tribe destroyed thirty 

 temples of the gods in one month. And, lastly, in these letters it is 

 said that Beth-baalatu had rebelled against the king. Now this 

 name, Beth-baalatu is closely akin to the second name of Kirjath- 

 jearim, Baalah or Baale, which was one of the cities of the 

 Gibeonites, the only people who made terms with Israel (Beth- 

 baalatu meaning the house of the female Baal) ; and of course we 

 know that the King of Jerusalem and the other southern kingdoms' 

 rulers were so indignant with the Gibeonites for having made peace 

 with the Israelites that they made war on them in turn. (Jos. x, 1-^.} 



It seems to me most convincing, when you put all these 

 arguments together, that the Habiri are the Israelites. And a very 

 curious thing was found by Colonel Conder. The last letter of the 

 King of Jerusalem — presumably the last — in which he says, " We are 

 leaving Jerusalem, 0 King," is written upon two kinds of clay, 

 one part of the letter having been written in Jerusalem and the 

 other in his place of exile, which was no doubt the very cave of • 

 Makkedah. 



The Secretary. — Mr. Chairman^ I just wish to interpose at this 

 point to call to your recollection that since we last met a most 

 distinguished explorer of the Holy Land and district of Sinai and 

 Mount Hor has passed away from us, the late Major-General Sir 

 Charles Wilson, a personal friend of mine for many years. He was 

 not a member of this Institute, ])ut he was present here more than 

 once and took part in our discussions."^' He was one of the most 

 remarkable men of the present generation. I do not hesitate to state 

 that his career was one of the most extraordinary of modern times 

 amongst British officers of the army. But the point that I want 



* See " Recent Investigations in Moab and Edom," Trans. Vict. Tnxt.^ 

 vol. xxxiii, and "Water Supply of Jerusalem," Ammal Address; 

 vol. xxxiv (J 902). 



