Ill 
“cunningly devised ” but spontaneous (p. 31), and the in- 
evitable growth of the human mind according to supposed 
psychological laws. 
I can but hastily at present offer a few thoughts on this 
mode of exposition. 
(A.) And, first, the philological argument is of a very slight 
texture indeed. The names, for instance, are for the most 
part not shown to have ever been used with the asserted 
significance. Abram was never a word for heaven, nor was 
even “ram” in Hebrew, although “rayam” in HUthiopic is 
adduced ; and no instance is suggested in any language where 
Abram denotes anything but a man, and this (by the way) 
not only in Scripture, for Abramu was a court-officer of Esar- 
haddon (Ep. Can. p. 39). 
Again, no instance is given of Yitshak (Isaac) really 
denoting the sun or the sunset, or anything else than a man 
whose name is explained in the Scripture narrative; nor of 
Sarah being a title of the moon in Hebrew or any other 
language; nor of Hagar meaning the sun in Hebrew. The 
noon-day sun may well be called al-hajira (the flying one), as 
our author tells us, by the Arabs quite consistently with a 
slave having borne (if so be) a similar name. Moreover Hakar 
( = Hagar, for the Egyptians had no g) occurs among the 
Pharaohs of the XXIXth dynasty, so that Hagar may after all 
have been a real Egyptian name. The Hagarenes, too, 
(Hagaranu in Assyrian) are mentioned both in Scripture and 
in an inscription of Tiglath Pileser II. 
A curious statement is made (p. 158) that “ Sin (the moon) 
and Gfula of the male triad are balanced respectively by ‘ the 
highest Princess/ and by Malkit ‘ the Queen ’ in the female ; 
and these are only Sarah and Milkah again.” This is hard to 
understand, for Gula was a goddess, not a “ male,” and could 
not be “ balanced ” by Malkit. In fact, Gula was the “ female ” 
corresponding to Samas the Sun-god, and “ sometimes re- 
placed,” says M. Lenormant (La Magie, 107), “by a group of 
three wives, equal among themselves : Malkit, Gula, and An- 
unit.” Moreover, the spouse of Sin does not appear to have 
been called Sarah; nor is there any evidence of a goddess 
called by the Hebrews Milcah. 
So with Abimelekh king of Gerar. Professor Goldziher 
includes this title in the “ Solar ” list, p. 158. Yet the name, 
like Abram, appears in the Assyrian annals (viz., as a prince 
of Aradus in the time of Esar-haddon). 
If all owners of lofty, or even celestial, titles are to be 
relegated to the skies, what will become of the Egyptian 
