OF BABYLONIAN CONCEPTIONS ON JEWISH THOUGHT. 333 



the Thebans honoured Khnum as the being " without beginning or 

 end," and on that ground refused to pay a tax for the festival of 

 Osiris, while in the inscriptions at Philae, he appears as the potter- 

 god who had made mankind (Plut. De Is. et Osiris a. 21 ; Budge, 

 The Mummy, p. 182). 



Again, whereas from the Fifth dynasty downwards the Egyptian 

 kings all called themselves sons of Ra (the sun-god), and besides, 

 often bore a name compounded with Ra's, before that dynasty, none 

 bear a title in which Ra occurs ; while Ra appears in only four out 

 of nineteen names of the Fourth, Third, and Second dynasties, and 

 occurs in no royal name before (cp. Proc. Soc. Bihl. Arch., 1908 ; 

 F. Legge's Titles of Thinite Kings, and Petrie^ Hist. Egypt). 



And, lastly, as regards Hommel's argument from the many names 

 ending in Hi in Arabia, and ilu in Babylonia in the time of 

 Khammurabi's dynasty, it was not that Arabia produced monotheism 

 but that the Shemites preserved longer than the Cushites or 

 Accadians the belief in one supreme almighty God. The recent 

 discovery by Delitseh of the name of Ya' Wa coupled with Ilu, God,* 

 upon Babylonian tablets of the same date leads to the same 

 conclusion. 



Lecturer's Reply. 



Most of my critics seem strongly opposed to liberal lines of 

 thought ; but Mr. G. P. Gooch writing to me says : " Your address 

 is a cautious and moderate statement of undeniable facts. There is 

 some loose thinking in Delitzsch, Jeremias, and Winckler, but you 

 keep on terra firma." Mr. J. Schwartz, junr., says: "You have 

 clearly enunciated the main point at issue on page 300. It is indeed 

 inspiring to hear one proclaiming the truth rather than the 

 prejudices of a caste." Mr. Curwen, I think I may also look on as 

 in the main on my side. 



The object of my paper was (1) to point out certain agreements 

 between Babylonian and Jewish conceptions, and (2) to suggest 

 modes in which these may have occurred. No one has denied the 

 coincidences, but the second point is the one at issue. Dr. Thomas 

 suggests that "both records may have come from the same primaeval 

 source," that is a fair alternative, but it hardly accounts for the fact 



* See Pinches, Old Testament in the Light, etc., p. 535, 2nd edition. 



