160 EEV. ANDREW CEAIG EOBINSON, M.A._, ON THE BEARING OF 



" Hagar despising her mistress (Gen. xvi, 4) is illustrated by law 

 146, which allows the mistress to reduce her to the position of a 

 slave again, which was agreed to by the patriarch, the result being 

 that Hagar fled." 



One has been sometimes inclined to feel that Abraham acted 

 rather unkindly by Hagar when he said to Sarai, after her maid 

 had despised her, " Behold, thy maid is in thine hand, do to her 

 as it pleaseth thee," but we can see now that he was only 

 conceding to Sarai what was her absolute right by Babylonian 

 law, under this section of the code of Hammurabi. 



But when on a later occasion at the feast when Isaac was 

 weaned Sarah saw Ishmael mocking, and demanded that the 

 bond-woman and her son should be cast out, Abraham would 

 seem to have demurred, and naturally so ; for Ishmael was then, 

 no doubt, a tine young lad, Abraham's first-born son, and we 

 read, " the thing was very grievous in Abraham's sight because 

 of his son." Nevertheless in obedience to the command of God 

 he sent Hagar and Ishmael away. 



The curious light thrown on this incident in the history of 

 Abraham by these two enactments of the code of Hammurabi, 

 from which it is evident that every step in the proceedings was 

 ruled by Babylonian custom and law, would seem to be powerful 

 evidence of the genuine character of the history. AVhat legend- 

 spinner of the later age — in which this custom seems to have 

 been unknown in Israel — would think of fettering his free 

 conceptions by musty codes of Babylonian law ? 



Genesis XIV. 



The names of the four kings. 



In connection with the Babylonian tone of the early chapters 

 of Genesis the fourteenth chapter is of very great interest and 

 importance. Shining as it were through the whole incident of 

 Hagar which we have been considering, we seem to see the 

 consciousness which Abraham had of the code of Hammurabi; 

 but in the fourteenth chai)ter he seems to come almost into 

 personal contact with King JJtinimurabi — Amra])liel — himself. 



]>elbre the archicological discoveries of recent years this most 

 remarkable chapter of Genesis, with its stately names ot ancient 

 kings, and all its .simple anti(|ue narrative, stood quite alone, 

 and unsupported by any evidence outside the Jiible. 



But in recent years the four kings from Mesopotamia luive 

 l)een identilied, with more or less certainty, with kings whose 



