298 



PROF. ARCHIBALD E. S. KENNEDY, M.A., D.D., ON 



Discussion. 



The Chairman said : The learned and instructive paper to 

 which we have just heard, deals with a subject of a very special and 

 technical nature. There may be some present who will be prepared 

 to criticise the methods and discuss the results laid before us. For 

 my own part, I do not feel myself competent to do so, and can only 

 accept Professor Kennedy's conclusions on his authority. 



But though the subject is a special and technical one, it is not 

 without bearings of very general interest to all of us. In the narra- 

 tives of the Bible it not unfrequently happens that what the critics 

 call the " historicity" or "unhistoric character" of the narrative is 

 made to depend upon the correspondence of ascertained facts with 

 those described in the narrative. If we can be certain what the 

 weights, measures, coins, etc., actually represent, we are able to 

 apply this test. Such evidence is also of value sometimes as to the 

 authenticity of a narrative. If we can ascertain whether facts of this 

 nature (coins, measures or weights) actually correspond with the 

 facts, we have a good deal of ground for inferring that the narrative 

 was written by someone personally acquainted with the conditions 

 existing at the time to which the narrative relates. 



The subject matter of Professor Kennedy's paper lies, therefore, at 

 the base of many enquiries of great interest. It happens fairly often 

 that cobwebs of criticism have to be swept away because they rest 

 on no ascertained and positive knowledge ; it is a great advantage to 

 have such clear and definite facts as have been placed before us, and 

 we owe Professor Kennedy an additional debt of gratitude for 

 having so plainly told us where the evidence available was good and 

 sufficient, and where it was only sufficient to produce varying degrees 

 of probability. 



The Professor has spoken of " a bewildering variety of standards " 

 in use in Palestine. The phrase is most applicable to the conditions 

 which prevailed not long ago in Southern India, where every 

 district had its own measures, and to enhance the difficulty of 

 comparison, these different measures, etc., often went by the same 

 name. One source of difficulty in comparing different measures 

 there arose from the fact that they were sometimes " struck " and 

 sometimes " heaped." A " struck " measure is one in which the 

 grain or flour contained in the measure is rendered level with the 

 top of the measure by drawing the hand or anything flat over the 



