REl^ORT ON THE CONGRESS OF ORIENTALISTS. 235 



nou admit of doubt, and was referred to by me in my paper 

 upon " The Keligion of the Babylonians 2000 years B.C.," read 

 at the Paris Congress for the History of Keligion in 1900. It 

 is the Babylonian equivalent of Joel, Yau"'-ilu, meaning " Jah 

 is God," and cannot, at least with our present knowledge, prove 

 the existence of the name Yahwah (Jehovah) at that early 

 date. 



The other two forms Delitzsch reads la-a'-ve-ilit and Ta-ve-ilio 

 respectively, and it must be admitted that they are both 

 possible readings, especially if we change the v into vj. I have 

 no hesitation in saying, however, that if Professor Delitzsch's 

 transcription of the character before ilu, whether written with 

 V or with w, be correct, its identification with the original 

 reading of the name Jehovah is exceedingly improbable. As 

 was pointed out in the discussion which ensued, the form is a 

 later one than that found 1 500 years later, namely, Yaawa or 

 Yawa, which occurs in several names quoted in the paper upon 

 " The Keligious Ideas of the Babylonians," read before this 

 Institute in 1895. It is to be noted, however, that the reading 

 necessitated by the early date of these names is also possible, 

 namely, Ya'wa-ilio and Yaiua-ilu, in which case Professor 

 Delitzsch would be right, and the names in question would 

 mean " Yahwah (Jehovah) is God," though his transcription 

 would be slightly incorrect. 



The readings Yapi-ihc and Yapi-ilu are possible, and this 

 fact has to be taken into consideration. Professor Delitzsch's 

 theory, however, with the modification in the transcription 

 which I have proposed, will always have to be regarded as one 

 of the more probable ones, and may be accepted, with reserve, 

 until material comes to light to prove the reading one way or 

 the other. 



Before closing, there is one point which may be referred to, 

 and that is the question of the publication of the transactions. 

 In consequence of the motion of Professor Naville, the 

 suggestion that abstracts only of the papers read should be 

 printed was adopted. The reason of this is that the volumes 

 of papers do not, as a rule, appear for several years after the 

 Congress has been held — it is only a short time since the second 

 and third volumes of the Transactions of the Congress, held at 

 Eome in 1899, were announced as ready for delivery to the 

 members, and this is, undoubtedly, an undesirable state of 

 things. The issue of abstracts, it was supposed, would fully 

 meet this difficulty, and it was provided in the resolution that 

 the abstracts sent in for publication should not exceed two 



