S. R. (Samuel Rolles) Driver.

Additions and corrections in the seventh edition of the book of Genesis online

. (page 1 of 5)
Online LibraryS. R. (Samuel Rolles) DriverAdditions and corrections in the seventh edition of the book of Genesis → online text (page 1 of 5)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

























The seventh edition of my Booh of Genesis does not diflFer in
any substantial respect from the preceding ones; I have only
been obliged to make some alterations, due to the advance of
knowledge, in certain matters relating to chronology and archae-
ology. In consequence of the discovery in 1907 of a cuneiform
Chronicle shewing that the Second Babylonian dynasty was in
part contemporary with the First, the date of the First dynasty,
and with it that of its sixth king, Hammurabi, have had to be
lowered; and I have now, throughout the volume, altered the
date of Hammurabi to B.C. 2130 — 2088. It seems also now
that the astronomer Mahler's date for Ramses II., B.c. 1348 —
1281, which has been adopted by Professor Sayce, rests upon
mistaken data, and that he mu3t be placed, with Petrie, Meyer,
and Breasted, c. 1300 — 1234 B.C. : the probable date of the Exodus
becomes thus c. 1230 B.C. I have revised the Chronological
Table (opposite p. i of the Introduction), in accordance with the
latest and best authorities ; and I have inserted two notes in the
Addenda, intended to help readers to understand the difficulties
of early Egyptian and Babylonian chronology, and to explain to
them the reasons for the divergent dates that have been proposed
for the early periods of Egyptian and Babylonian history. Some
fresh notes on other subjects have also been introduced into the
Addenda. It occurred to me that, among those who possessed
an earlier edition of the work, there might be some who would
be glad to be able to obtain these additions and corrections
without being under the necessity of purchasing the seventh
edition itself; and they are accordingly collected separately in
the present form.

S. R. D.

August 2, 1909.




p. xxix, 11. 1 — 2, read : ' with our present knowledge, the most probable date
for Hammurabi's reign is B.C. 2130 — 2088' : see the Addenda, pp. xxix — xxxi.
Abraham's date in 1. 4 thus becomes c. 2100 B.C.

Lower down in the page, for ' but Sayce's date,' &c. read : ' but Petrie,
Breasted and Meyer agree in assigning to Ramses II. dates varying only from
B.C. 1310 — 1244 to B.C. 1292 — 1225': thus, according to the best available
authorities, the Exodus will have taken place between c. 1240 and c. 1220 B.C.

Footnote 1 is cancelled : for n. 2 substitute : —

Professor Sayce's date for Eamses II., e.g. 1348—1281 [Mon. 230, 242), quoted
here in previous editions, is that fixed by the astronomer Mahler in 1890: but
though it is true that a ' Sothic ' period (see the Addenda, j^p. xvii — xviii) began in
B.C. 1318, it seems that Mahler was mistaken in supposing that a certain horoscope
in the roof of the Eamesseum at Thebes connected the beginning of this period with
Ramses' 30th year (Eisenlohr, FSB A. 1895, p. 282; Meyer, Aeg. Chronol, 1904,
p. 38). The date 1348—1281 for Ramses II., and with it Prof. Sayce's date for the
Exodus, B.C. 1277, consequently fall through altogether.

P, XXX, U. 6 — 9, read : ' All that we can say is that, if the Israelites were
430 years in Egypt, and the Exodus took place c. 1230 B.C., the Pharaoh of
Joseph will have been one of the Hyksos kings, who ruled (Petrie) b.c. 2098 —
1587, or (Meyer and Breasted) B.C. 1680—1580' : see the Addenda, p. xrx.

P. xxxii, n. 2. On the other hand, Thureau-Dangin is of opinion that this
high date for Sargon cannot be maintained (Journal des Savants, 1908, p. 201),
and Meyer even brings him down to B.C. 2500. Pending further discoveries, it
seems thus that the question of Sargon's date must be left an open one.

P. xxxiii, 1. 10, for 'by Brugsch,' &c. read : 'by Meyer and Breasted to
c. B.C. 3400^'; and in 1. 16 read: 'beginning B.C. 3998 (Petrie) or B.C. 2900
(Meyer).' Brugsch's provisional chronology, which is followed by Budge, does
not do justice to the data now known, and is antiquated. From the accession
of the 18th Dynasty, the rival chronologies vary only by a few years (see the
Table, p. XLVi) : for the earlier period, with our present knowledge, our choice
must lie between the chronology of Petrie a.s given in his History (Mones, B.C.
4777), of Meyer and Breasted (Menes, c. B.C. 3400), and of Petrie as given in
his ResearcJies in Sinai, 1906 (Menes, b.c. 5510).

^ In explanation of these divergences, see the Addenda, pp. xvii — xix.

P. xxxiii, 11. 21 — 28, read: 'brought to light remains of a " pre-dynastic "
period (i.e. of a period preceding Menes), extending at least 7 — 800 years
before Menes, in which the inhabitants of the Nile Valley, though they had


not yet developed the arts practised in the early " dynastic " period^ displayed

a marvellous skill in fashioning flint into weapons, tools, and implements of all

kinds ; '

' See the careful comparison of pre-dynastio and early dynastic civilization in
Egypt, as illustrated by objects found in tombs, with a summary of results, in G. A.
Reisner's The Early Dynastic Cemeteries of Naya-ed-Der (in the University of Cali-
fornia Publications), Leipzig, 1908, pp. 126—135. The earliest tombs at present
explored are dated by Reisner 7—800 years before Menes (Meyer's date). Copper
implements first appear in the middle of the pre-dynastic period (pp. 114 — 7).

P. xxxiv. On remains of the palaeolithic age in Egypt, see King and Hall,
Egypt and Western Asia in the Light of Recent Discoveries (IdOl), pp. 5 — 14.

P. xlviii, last line but one, and p. xlix, 11. 1—3, for 'On and in other

contract-tablets ' read: ' In other contract-tablets' (omitting n. 1); and for n. 2
substitute : —

1 A name of the same form as Ishmael, ' May God hear ! ' Jerahmeel, ' May God
be compassionate ! ' &c. : cf. pp. 182, 295. The statement made here in former
editions, on the authority of Hommel (AHT. 74 n., 96 n.), Sayce {EHH. 13—14,
38, 128), and Pinches (p. 148), that the name Ahe-ramu ( = 'Abram') appears on
a contract-tablet of the Hammurabi-age, was incorrect : the name was misread by
Hommel; and it is really Abi-erah: see A. H. Clay, Light on the OT.from Babel
(Philadelphia, 1907), p. 142; Rauke, Persojiennamen, p. 58. In Pinches^ (1908),
p. 148, the comparison is withdrawn. At a much later date, however, Abu-ramu
(= Abram) does occur as the name of the Assyrian official who gave his name to the
5th year of Esarhaddon (b.c. 677) : see KAT:^ p. 479.

P. li, 1. 10: omit 'and Sayce'; and for Budge's date substitute 'Meyer and
Breasted, 1501—1447.'

P. 27, n. 1. Add a reference to Gressmann's Altorientalische Texte und
Bilder zum A T. (1909), i. 4 ff.

P. 34, n. 2, 11. 2—3, substitute :—

' The contract-tablets seem to shew that in the Hammurabi-age (p. 156) there was
a marked abstention of work on these days in Babylonia : see the Addenda, p. xxiv.'

P. 52, n. 5, 11. 4—5, read: 'Its oracle is alluded to by Eriaku [p. 156]: see
the Addenda, p. xxxii.'

P. 90, vii. 11, the note on the second month now reads: Hhe second month.
I.e., probably (Gunkel, pp. 133, 134; Konig, ZDMG. 1906, p. 628), the second
month of the year according to which P always reckons, and which began
with Abib (Ex. xii. 2, compared with xiii. 4), =our April. In the Babylonian
story, the flood, according to Berossus, began on the 16th of Daisies (= June).'

P. 106, 1.9, read: ' 1984— 1964' for '2245— 2228'; and p. 107, 1.4, '1980' for
' 2200.'

P. 120, 1. 7 from bottom: for '2400' read '2232—2219.'

P. 121, end of note on Nineveh, read: 'at present [1909] known, who is
styled "king," is Ilu-shunima, c. 2200 b.c' : see the Addenda, p. xxix, n. 1.

P. 128, note on Elam, 11. 4 to end, substitute: ' This people early developed
a flourishing and many-sided civilization : at a remote period (? 3800 B.C.), —
though not before they had invented a system of writing, — they were sub-
jugated by Sargon of Agadd ; and the early Elamite princes (many of whose


names have recently been recovered) style themselves patesi's (" priest-kings,"
or "viceroys"), shewing that they were dependent upon Babylonia. Asshur-
banipal tells us that an Elamite king, Kudur-uanchuudi, 1635 years before
himself ( = b.c. 2280), invaded Babylonia, and pillaged many temples ; and not
long after we find Elamite rulers firmly established in S. Babylonia, till their
power was broken by Hammurabi (below, p. 156 f.) and his successor Samsu-
iluna (B.C. 2087 — 2050)^. In later times Elam is mentioned repeatedly both in
the Ass. inscriptions and in the OT. (ch. xiv. 1 ; Is. xi. 11, xxi. 2, xxii. 6;
Ez. xxxii. 24, aL). Racially, the Elamites were entirely distinct from the
Semites, their language, for instance, being agglutinative and belonging to a
different family: their geographical proximity to Assyria is no doubt the
reason why they are here included among the "sons" of Shem.'

1 See Scheil, Textes Elamites-Semitiques (1900), pp. ix. — xii. ; or the account of
M. de Morgan's excavations in 1897 — 1899, by St Chad Boscawen, in the Asiatic
Quarterly Review, Oct. 1901, p. 330 fit. ; King in King and Hall's Egypt and Western
Asia in the Light of Recent Discoveries (1907), pp. 221 — 229, 229—233 (on the
'Proto-Elamite' system of writing), 234 — 246; Meyer, Getch. d. Altertums'^, i. ii.
(1909), pp. 408—410, 541—544, 651—556, 557 f., 563 top.

P. 128, end of note on Arpachshad. Prof. Sayce offers another conjectural
explanation of the same name in the Exp. Times, Feb. 1907, p. 232.

P. 137, Lis, for ' almost contiguous to ' read : ' 8 or 9 miles from.' When the
former words were written, the only plan of ancient Babylon available was the
one put forth by Oppert, largely upon a conjectural basis, in about 1850, and
reproduced in Smith's DB. and elsewhere ; but recent excavations have shewn
that the ancient city did noi by any means extend as far in the direction of
Borsippa as Oppert supposed.

P. 137, 11. 23 — 4, for 'is generally considered... Birs Nimroud' read: 'was
discovered in 1906, in the course of the excavations organized by the German
Orient-Gesellschaft, under the mound of 'Amran'; and for «. 3 substitute: —

• See Weissbach, Dai Stadtbild von Babylon (1904), p. 21, and the plan, p. 13;
or Langdon's art. on the topography of ancient Babylon in the Expositor, July,
1909. For a view of Birs Nimroud, see Smith, DB. i. 159 (»i. 320). The mound of
•Amran is marked on the map ibid, i, 153 (^i. 317), or in EncB. i. 415 — 6; but the
plan of the city in Smith (reproduced from Oppert), representing it as a large
quadrangle, is completely antiquated.

P. 156, 11. 5 — 7, for ' Hammurabi... 2334' read: 'Hammurabi reigned for
43 years^ — according to Thureau-Dangin and Ungnad, B.C. 2130 — 2088-'.'

• See the nearly contemporary chronological register of part of this dynasty,
first published by L. W. King, in his Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi, iil
(translations), 1900, pp. Ivi.— Ixxi., 212—253: cf. Pinches, OT. in the light of the
records dc. 211 ff.

' The date B.C. depends in part upon statements made by later kings: as these
are not in all cases perfectly consistent, other scholars arrive at somewhat dififerent
dates for Hammurabi, as 2198-2155 (Poebel, Z. fitr Ass. 1908, p. 175), or 1958—
1916 (Ed. Meyer, Gesch. des Altertunis^, i. ii., 1909, p. 341). But all earlier dates,
such as those given formerly by Sayce, Johns, and others, have become antiquated
since the publication in 1907 of the newer material contained in L. W. King's
Chronicles concerning early Babylonian Kings: see the Addenda, pp. xxviii — xxxi.


For n. 1 substitute : —

*For a list of the 11 kings of this dynasty, see the Addenda, p. xxix.'

Cancel the present n. 3 ; and for n. 5 substitute : —

* See particulars of his reign in Maspero, ii. 39 — 44, or the Introd. to King,
Letters. He constructed among other things a system of canals in Babylonia.
In 1901, also, a very interesting code of laws promulgated by him, was discovered,
containing remarkable parallels to several of the civil and criminal laws found in
Ex. xxi. — xxiii., Lev. xx., and Deut. xii. — xxvi. : see Johns, DB. v. 584 — 612; and
S. A. Cook, The Laws of Moses and the Code of Hammurabi (1903).

Cancel nn. 6 and 7, and in the first line of paragraph 2 read : ' Eriagu or
Eriaku*/ with the footnote : —

' Eriagu, or Eriaku, is the Sumerian equivalent of the Semitic 'Arad-sin,' the
name by which this king is usually known. The old identification with Rim-sin, —
which depended on the doubtful assumption that this name could be read Eriaku, —
is now given up. See further particulars in the Addenda, pp. xxxi — xxxii.

P. 167, 1. 7 from bottom, for 'seven' read: 'six.' The letters numbered
182, 1S6 in Winckler's edition have been found to form really one letter
(182* + 185 + 182b) : see Knudzton's El-Amarna Tafeln, 1908, No. 289. Note 3
is corrected accordingly.

P. 194, note on v. 14, 1. 3, for '2 S. L 20' read: ' 2 S. I 26.'

P. 221, add to footnote:—

' Bones of infants, which had been presumably sacrificed, buried in jars, have
been found at Gezer, Taanach, and Megiddo : see the writer's " Schweich Lectures "
for 1908, on Modem Research and the Bible (1909), pp. 68 f., 82, 84; S. A. Cook,
Religion of Ancient Palestine (1908), p. 36 f.'

P. 229, 1. 14, read: 'b.o. 1300—1234' (Petrie'e more recent date for
Kamses IL).

P. 229, n. 2, 1. 3, add :—

'more probably, b.o. 2130 — 2088; see the Addenda, pp. xxix — xxxi.'

P. 267, n. 4, add:—

' see the writer's Schweich Lectures, pp. 62 — 65, 84 (with illustrations).'

P. 337, note on v. 7, 1. 3, for ' with them ' read : ' with him.'

P. 347, 1. 26, for ' 1348—1281, Sayce' read: ' 1300—1234, Petrie.'

P. 347, 1. 34, for ' 1750 B.C., Brugsch and Budge,' read: ' 1580, Meyer and

Breasted,' with a footnote, ' After a rule, however, of only 100 years,— see the

Addenda, p. xix.'

P. 409, «. 2, add:—

' and G. F. Moore in the American Journal of Theology, 1908, p. 34 ff.'



p. xxviii. The attempt which is sometimes made to harmonize the Biblical
narrative with an earlier date for the first appearance of man than b.c. 4157,
by denying that the genealogy in Gen. v. supplies any basis for a chronology,
does patent violence to the terms used. Had indeed the language of Gen. v.
been simply that A begat B, and B begat C, &c., it might have been conceiv-
able, as in Mt. i., that links were omitted : but when the age of each patriarch
at the birth of his first-horn is expressly stated, such a supposition is mani-
festly out of the question.

P. xxix n. The date c. 1300 — 1234 for Ramses II is supported by the fact
that, if Thothmes III is rightly assigned to B.c. 1501 — 1447, the known regnal
years of the intervening kings require an interval of at least 26 + 8 + 36 + 25 -t-
34-1-2 4-21 = 152 years between them (Breasted, Hist, of Egypt, 1906, p. 599).

P. xxxiii. Egyptian chronology rests upon four principal bases : (1) the list
of 31 dynasties, with the numbers, and, in most cases, the names of the kings in
each, and the years which they reigned, drawn up by Manetho, a priest
of Sebennytus, c. 280 B.C. The Egyptian history of Manetho has perished:
but his list is quoted by Africanus, p]usebius, and (in part) by Josephus.
(2) Native lists, — all either partial, or, unhappily, mutilated, — the principal of
which are the Turin papyrus, the Tablets of Abydos, Sakkara, and Karnak,
and the Palermo Stone, first published in 1906^ (3) The highest years of
kings mentioned in the inscriptions. These notices are naturally not of a
character to yield a complete chronology: but they yield minimum dates
for the reigns of many kings, and often supply us with the means of checking
or correcting other statements. (4) Astronomical occurrences assigned in the
inscriptions to the reigns of particular kings, the dates of which can be
determined by astronomical calculation. The Egyptian calendar year con-
sisted of 365 days; and began on 1 Thoth (properly, our July 19), the day on
which the dog-star, Sirius or Sothis, rose with the sun in the morning. But
the year thus annually marked by the rising of Sothis with the sun is virtually

^ See a synopsis of Manetho's list, as quoted by different ancient writers, and of
the first three of the native lists mentioned, in Sayce's Egypt of the Hebrews
fl902), pp. 287 ft. The Palermo Stone dates from the 5th dynasty, and is of
importance as shewing how carefully, even at this early date, the annals of every
king had been kept, probably from the time of Menes. For an account, and trans-
lation, of the inscription, see Breasted's Ancient Records of Egypt (Chicago, 1906),
i. 51 ff.



identical with the astronomical year of (approximately) 365|^ days : hence in
the Egyptian calendar year a quarter of a day was dropped every year ; every
four years, therefore, the calendar reached the end of the year, and began
the next year, one day too soon, so that the new year began a day before the
one on which Sirius rose with the sun; and as this process continued, the
calendar new year, and with it the calendar months of the Egj'ptian year, all
began earlier and earlier, till after 1460 years they had shifted back an entire
year, and all began a year too soon. The rising of Sothis with the sun co-
incided with 1 Thoth, the calendar New Year's Day, in B.C. 4241/0—4238/7,
2781/0—2778/7, 1321/0—1318/7: if, therefore, we found a statement that the
' heliacal ' rising of Sothis took place in a given year (say) 30 days later than
1 Thoth, we should know, in virtue of what has been said, that that year was
30 X 4 = 120 years after one of these dates B.C.

From the 18th dynasty onwards there is little difference in the dates
arrived at by different modern Egyptologists, two 6xed points, consistent
with each other, being capable of determination by astronomical calculation-.
(1) A papyrus states that in the 9th year of Amen-hotep I, the 2nd king of this
dynasty, Sothis rose with the sun on the 9th of Epiphi, i.e. 308 days after
1 Thoth: 4x308 = 1232; the 9th year of Amen-hotep I was thus 1232 years
after 2781/0 — 2778/7, or (taking the earliest of these alternatives) was 1549
B.C., and his first year was 1557 B.C. (2) In a document dating from the reign
of Thothmes III, the festival of the heliacal rising of Sirius is said to have
taken place on the 28th of Epiphi, i.e. 19 days later than in 1550/49 — 1547/6.
As 4 X 19 = 76, the year referred to will have been 76 years later than 1550/49 —
1547/6, or 1474/3—1471/0. One of the years 1474/3—1471/0 fell consequently
during the reign of Thothmes III, which by means of notices respecting the
appearance of the new moon is fixed more closely to B.C. 1501 — 1447. This
date for Thothmes III will make the 18th dynasty begin c. 1587 B.C.

Manetho's reporters give confused and discrepant accounts of the state-
ments respecting the five dynasties preceding the 18th: but according to
Josephus he stated that for 511 years before the 18th dynasty, Egypt was
ruled by the foreign invaders called the Hyksos: these (Petrie-) were partly
contemporary with native Egyptian dynasties, and they were preceded by the
453 years of the 13th dynasty: thus Petrie makes the 12th dynasty end
B.C. 2565, and (adding the 213 years assigned to it by the Turin papyrus)
begin b.c. 2778. But a document (one of the Kahun papyri) discovered in
1899 contains a statement that in the 7th year of Usertesen^ III of this
dynasty, the festival of the heliacal rising of Sothis fell on the 15th of Phar-
muthi, or 225 days after 1 Thoth: 4x225 = 900; the 7th year of Usertesen
was consequently 900 years after b.c. 2781/0—2778/7, or B.C. 1881; his first
year was thus 1887 B.C. ; and the dynasty ruled (adding, before and after
Usertesen, the regnal years known) b.c. 2000 — 1788. It follows from this

^ Comp., with what follows on this subject, Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt,
i. 25 — 48 (with a table of dynasties, and dates of reigns), 221 — 3.

= History of Egypt, i" (1903), p. 204 f.

' Or, as the name is now read (Meyer, p. 245), Senwosret (the prototype of
' Sesostris').


lower date for the 12tli dynasty, that, if it be correct, Manetho's 511 years
for the Hyksos must be far too great; accordingly those who accept it allow
for the whole of the 13th to the 17th dynasties only about 200 years (b.c. 1788
—1580), and for the Hyksos only c. 1680—1580.

Such is the explanation of the great divergence between Petrie on the one
hand, and Meyer and Breasted on the other, as regards the date of the
12th dynasty. The cogency of the astronomical argument is admitted by
Petrie: the correctness of the Sirius datum in the 12th dynasty is, he points
out, confirmed by two independent testimonies from monuments in Sinai
{Researches in Sinai, 1906, pp. 168—170): but Meyer and Breasted's reduction
of the length of the 13th to the 17th dynasties, he argues, does great violence
to the combined testimony of Manetho and the Turin papyrus, Manetho
assigning to this whole period 1590 yeai-s, and the Turin papyrus so far sup-
porting him that it gives the names of 100 or more kings belonging to the
13th and 14th dynasties {ibid. 171 — 6). Petrie accordingly now (p. 175) has
recourse to the other possible alternative of reckoning Usertesen'a 7th year
as 900 years, not from the Sothic period which began 2781 b.c, but from the
previous Sothic period which began (see above) 4241 B.C. He thus gives now
{I.e.) as the date of the 12th dynasty B.C. 3459 — 3246, and as the date of
Menes B.C. 5510. Against such a high date Meyer and Breasted argue that
Manetho's figures are not trustworthy. The sixty kings of the 13th dynasty
had only short reigns, the early Hyksos were partly contemporary even
with the 13th dynasty, and the sparsity of monuments belonging to the 13th
— 17th dynasties is unfavourable to the supposition that the period was such
along one (see Meyer, Aeg. Chron. 60 — 65, Nachtrdge, 31 — 39, Gesch. d. Alt.^
I. ii. 276 — 286, 293). The future must shew which of these three divergent
chronologies will ultimately be found to accord best with the available data.

For the purposes of the present note, it is not necessary to pursue the
subject of Egyptian Chronology further : those who desire fuller information
may be referred to Petrie, Hist, of Egypt, i.^ (1903), 145—7, 200—5 (on the
Hyksos period), 248 — 254 (the date of Merenptah, p. 251, modified in iii. p. 2),
ii. 25 — 34 (for p. 32, comp. Meyer, Nachtrdge, p. 43f.; and on the other side,
Petrie, Sinai, pp. 177—181), iii. pp. vi— viii; Budge, Hist, of Eg. (1902), i.
HI — 161 ; Ed. Meyer's masterly treatise Aegyptische Chronologic in the
Abhandlungen of the Berlin Academy, 1904, with the Nachtrdge, ibid., 1907 ;
Breasted's invaluable Ancient Records of Egypt, Historical Documents from
the earliest times to the Persian conquest, collected, edited, and translated
with Commentary (5 vols.; Chicago, 1906), i. 25—48, 221—3 ; Petrie, Re-
searches in Sinai (1906), pp. 16.3 — 181 ; Meyer, Gesch. des Altertums^, i. ii.
(1909), pp. 28—38, cf 53—56, 95—102, 276—286, 293 ; more briefly. Breasted,
Hist, of Egypt (1906), pp. 13 f, 21—23, with Table of Dynasties, pp. 597 ff.

Pp. xlii n. 2, 24 n. 2 (second paragraph). I rejoice to see substantially
the same criticisms made independently by the Rev. G. S. Streatfeild on pp.
15 — 17 of his pamphlet cited below (p. Ixviii).

P. xlix. On the supposed occurrence of the name Yahweh in Babylonian,
the most recent discussion in English is in Rogers' Relig. of Bah. and Ass.,
especially in its relations to Israel (New York, 1908), pp. 89 flf., who agrees



that it does so occur. Other Assyriologists, however, still question this : see
Daiches, in the Z. filr Ass. 1908, pp. 125 flF. Zimmeni, at least in 1903
{KA 71^ 468 n.), regarded it as very uncertain.

P. xlix n. 2. It is interesting to find, in the list of places in Palestine
taken by Shishak (c. B.c. 930), one (No. 71 — 2), which is considered now by
Egyptologists to correspond to a Semitic D"13N 7pn, ' Field of Abram ' [hdkal
being an Aramaic word, the one found in '^A;<3^dama' = Km 'Ppn, and also

1 3 4 5

Online LibraryS. R. (Samuel Rolles) DriverAdditions and corrections in the seventh edition of the book of Genesis → online text (page 1 of 5)