268 
such things bears testimony to the correctness of the descriptor in the Bible, 
of the sacrifice of children to the god of fire. This is a curious illustration, 
which the fact of this being the 1st of May has just called to my mind. 
^MeGoderey.— We may consider Bel and Beltain to be rather Baal than 
^Dr Eraser. — I should hare added Baal, as well as Bel, i. e. Moloch. 
Mr Titcomb.— I quite agree with Mr. Gosse’s view as given m the first par, 
of his letter. It would be a very desirable thing to have the nomenclature 
of the philological families of the earth so constructed as to avoid the use of 
the words “ Hamitic” and “Semitic,” but when words are so commonly used 
it is next to impossible to upset them and invent anything fresh. You speak 
of things being Semitic or Hamitic and so on, philologically, and there seems 
to be a feeling that they should be the same ethnologicaUy but that js 
not so ; and it is that fact which has obliged me to insert the 28th and 29th 
sections in my paper. Mr. Gosse was the first to raise an objection as to the 
derivation of Babel. I do not dispute his remarks, or Mr. Graham s , but 
that does not interfere with the argument on whichmy criticism was founded 
because I was merely showing that Chaldea had Semitic nations mi^ and 
whether we take the word as “ gate of God,” or as confusion it is still went - 
fled with the Semitic tongue. It is merely a microscopical criticism, anu if 
it be a blemish or defect it is only a small one. As to the Kumc Crosses,^ 
can only say that all Mr. Newton’s arguments, which would otherwise mw- 
date a portion of my paper, must rest on the assumption he took that the 
Runic Crosses are so ancient as to date from a period prior to Christianity- 
We know the cross is seen before Christianity, because Christ was crucified 
on a cross, and those Runic Crosses may have been coincident with a very 
remote time. But when you come to the ornamentation you cannot ueeidA 
and the degree of elaboration on these crosses seems to be inconsistent ..i 
primitive tfmes. It is possible that an old cross might have had a crucifixion 
engraved on it at a subsequent period, and so these Runic Crosses may 
had crucifixions engraved on them subsequently, as in the case »f Jhe 
Egyptian monuments. Mr. Newton might say that persons connected wi h 
th’e Jewish religion might have had access to the Epptian monuments a.a 
engraved subjects upon them which seemed to indicate a knowledge of me 
Pentateuch. , .1 ■ 
Mr NEWiON.-That is not my argument. My argument was this . that 
if the Runic Crosses exist now as they were originally made, and if they were 
made anterior to Christianity, they would tell by the figures upon > them 
against your argument, because they represent certain scenes in the 
Te Mr“TiTCOMB.-But you could not expect that any power of production 
could have represented a crucifixion with a sponge and spear at a period an- 
terior to Christianity ? , 
Mr. Newton— The interpretation of a picture may be changed according 
to the view of the interpreter. 
