are made contemporaries, which must rejoice the hearts of all who are 
opposed to accepting the simple narrative recorded in Scripture ! 
Although Mr. Dunbar Heath spoke of his “ Exodus Papyri with con- 
siderable diffidence, yet he mentioned so many extraordinary things in the 
few words which he addressed to the meeting that I will reply to him in 
the words of Canon Cook, a most competent judge, in his Essay On the 
Bearings of Egyptian History upon the Pentateuch : — 
“It was quite natural to expect that, if the Israelites were settled in 
Goshen, or had been very lately expelled, when those documents were written, 
some notices of them would be found, — some allusions at least to the events 
preceding the Exodus. Accordingly, a writer (Mr. Dunbar Heath, Papyri 
of the Exodus ), to whose industry and ingenuity we are indebted for some of 
the first attempts to decipher and explain the select papyri, believed, and for 
a time persuaded others, that he found abundance of such notices. He 
speaks of a true, original, and varied picture of many of the very actors in 
the Exodus ; a Jannes mentioned five times, a Moses twice, a Balaam, son of 
Zippor, and the sudden and mysterious death of a prince-royal, &c. Since 
his work was written, all the passages adduced by him have been carefully 
investigated , and every indication of the presence of the Israelites has dis- 
appeared. The absence of such indications supplies, if not conclusive, yet a 
very strong argument against the hypothesis which they were adduced to 
support.” — See Speaker’s Commentary , vol. i. pp. 468-9. 
THE MOABITE STOEE. 
A short statement relating to this stone will not be out of place here, 
more especially as none of those who took part in the discussion on 
Mr. Savile’s paper replied to the question put by the Chairman in his 
introductory remarks (page 107). 
On the 19th of August, 1868, the Bev. F. A. Klein, attached to the 
J erusalem Mission Society, was travelling through the country of Moab ; 
and on arriving at Diban (Dibon), heard of an inscribed stone never yet 
seen by a European ; on examination, he found it to be “ in a perfect state 
of preservation, and it was only from great age and exposure to the rain and 
sun that certain parts, especially the upper and lower lines, had somewhat 
suffered.” The size of the stone was about 44 inches by 28 by 14. Mr. Klein 
took no drawing of the stone, but mentioned the matter to the Prussian 
Consul at J erusalem, and various fruitless negotiations — in which Captain 
Warren very judiciously abstained from taking a part — were entered into 
with the Arabs with a view to getting possession of the stone, and sending it 
to Berlin. In 1869, however, the Prussian Consul obtained a firman for its 
removal, but in the meanwhile the protracted negotiations had aroused the 
jealousy and cupidity of the Arabs, and in November, when M. Ganneau 
sent a messenger with squeeze-paper to obtain an impression of the in scrip, 
tion, “ whilst the paper was still wet, a quarrel arose amongst the Arabs, and 
the messenger, tearing off the wet impression, had only time to spring upon 
his horse and escape by flight, bringing with him the squeeze, imperfect, and 
