On one occasion, however, Labai was actually made prisoner by one of the Egyptian officers. There is a letter from Biridi stating that Megiddo was threatened by Labai, and that although the garrison had been strengthened by the arrival of some Egyptian troops, it was impossible to venture outside the gates of the town for fear of the enemy, and that unless two more regiments were sent the city itself was likely to fall. Whether the additional forces were sent or not we do not know. Labai, however, had to fly for his life along with his confederate Yasdata, who was the governor of some city near Megiddo, as we learn from a letter of his in which he speaks of being with Biridi. Of Yasdata we hear nothing further, but Labai was captured in Megiddo by Zurata, the prefect of Acre, who, under the pretext that he was going to send his prisoner in a ship to Egypt, took him first to the town of Khinatuna ('En'athon), and then to his own house, where he was induced by a bribe to set him free along with his companion, Hadad-mekhir (who, by the way, has bequeathed to us two letters).

It was probably after this that Labai wrote to the Pharaoh to exculpate himself, though his language, in spite of its conventional submissiveness, could not have been very acceptable at the Egyptian court. In one of his letters he excuses himself partly on the ground that even "the food of his stomach" had been taken from him, partly that he had attacked and entered Gezer only in order to recover the property of himself and his friend Malchiel, partly because a certain Bin-sumya whom the Pharaoh had sent against him had really "given a city and property in it to my father, saying that if the king sends for my wife I shall withhold her, and if the king sends for myself I shall give him instead a bar of copper in a large bowl and take the oath of allegiance." A second letter is still more uncompromising. In this he complains that the Egyptian troops have ill-treated his people, and that the officer who is with him has slandered him before the king; he further declares that two of his towns have been taken from him, but that he will defend to the last whatever still remains of his patrimony.

Malchiel, the colleague of Labai in his attack upon Gezer, as afterwards upon Ebed-Tob of Jerusalem, does not appear to have been of Beduin origin. But as long as the Beduin chief could be of use to him he was very willing to avail himself of his assistance, and it was always easy to drop the alliance as soon as it became embarrassing. Malchiel was the son-in-law of Tagi of Gath, and the colleague of Su-yardata, one of the few Canaanite governors whom the Egyptian government seems to have been able to trust. Both Su-yardata and Malchiel held commands in Southern Palestine, and we hear a good deal about them from Ebed-Tob. "The two sons of Malchiel" are also mentioned in a letter from a lady who bears a Babylonian name, and who refers to them in connection with an attempt to detach the cities of Ajalon and Zorah (Joshua xv. 33) from their allegiance to Egypt. The female correspondents of the Pharaoh are among the most curious and interesting features of the state of society depicted in the Tel el-Amarna tablets; they entered keenly into the politics of the day, and kept the Egyptian king fully informed of all that was going on.

The letters of Ebed-Tob are so important that it is as well to give them in full. They all seem to have been written within a few months, or perhaps even weeks, of one another, when the enemies of the governor of Jerusalem were gathering around him, and no response came from Egypt to his requests for help. The dotted lines mark the words and passages which have been lost through the fracture of the clay tablets.

(I.) "To the king my lord [my] Sun-god, thus [speaks] Ebed-Tob thy servant: at the feet of the king my lord seven times seven I prostrate myself. Behold, the king has established his name at the rising of the sun and the setting of the sun. Slanders have been uttered against me. Behold, I am not a governor, a vassal of the king my lord. Behold, I am an ally of the king, and I have paid the tribute due to the king, even I. Neither my father nor my mother, but the oracle (or arm) of the Mighty King established [me] in the house of [my] fathers.... There have come to me as a present 13 [women] and 10 slaves. Suta (Seti) the Commissioner of the king has come to me: 21 female slaves and 20 male slaves captured in war have been given into the hands of Suta as a gift for the king my lord, as the king has ordained for his country. The country of the king is being destroyed, all of it. Hostilities are carried on against me as far as the mountains of Seir (Joshua xv. 10) and the city of Gath-Karmel (Joshua xv. 55). All the other governors are at peace, but there is war against myself, since I see the foe, but I do not see the tears of the king my lord because war has been raised against me. While there is a ship in the midst of the sea, the arm (or oracle) of the Mighty King shall conquer the countries of Naharaim (Nakhrima) and Babylonia. But now the Confederates (Khabiri) are capturing the fortresses of the king. Not a single governor remains among them to the king my lord; all have perished. Behold, Turbazu, thy military officer, [has fallen] in the great gate of the city of Zelah (Josh, xviii. 28). Behold, Zimrida of Lachish has been murdered by the servants who have revolted against the king. Jephthah-Hadad, thy military officer, has been slain in the great gate of Zelah.... May the king [my lord] send help [to his country]! May the king turn his face to [his subjects]! May he despatch troops to [his] country! [Behold,] if no troops come this year, all the countries of the king my lord will be utterly destroyed. They do not say before the face of the king my lord that the country of the king my lord is destroyed, and that all the governors are destroyed, if no troops come this year. Let the king send a commissioner, and let him come to me, even to me, with auxiliary troops, and we will die with the king [our] lord.—[To] the secretary of the king my lord [speaks] Ebed-Tob [thy] servant. At [thy] feet [I prostrate myself]. Let a report of [my] words be laid before the king [my] lord. Thy [loyal] servant am I."

(II.) "To the king my lord thus speaks Ebed-Tob thy servant: at the feet of the king my lord seven times seven I prostrate myself. What have I done against the king my lord? They have slandered me, laying wait for me in the presence of the king, the lord, saying: Ebed-Tob has revolted from the king his lord. Behold, neither my father nor my mother has exalted me in this place; the prophecy of the Mighty King has caused me to enter the house of my father. Why should I have committed a sin against the king the lord? With the king my lord is life. I say to the officer of the king [my] lord: Why dost thou love the Confederates and hate the governors? And constantly I am sending to the presence of the king my lord to say that the countries of the king my lord are being destroyed. Constantly I am sending to the king my lord, and let the king my lord consider, since the king my lord has appointed the men of the guard who have taken the fortresses. Let Yikhbil-Khamu [be sent].... Let the king send help to his country. [Let him send troops] to his country which protects the fortresses of the king my lord, all of them, since Elimelech is destroying all the country of the king; and let the king send help to his country. Behold, I have gone down along with the king my lord, and I have not seen the tears of the king my lord; but hostility is strong against me, yet I have not taken anything whatever from the king my lord; and let the king incline towards my face; let him despatch a guard [for me], and let him appoint a commissioner, and I shall not see the tears of the king my lord, since the king [my] lord shall live when the commissioner has departed. Behold, the countries of the king [my lord] are being destroyed, yet thou dost not listen to me. All the governors are destroyed; no governor remains to the king the lord. Let the king turn his face to his subjects, and let him send auxiliaries, even the troops of the king my lord. No provinces remain unto the king; the confederates have wasted all the provinces of the king. If auxiliaries come this year, the provinces of the king the lord will be preserved; but if no auxiliaries come the provinces of the king my lord are destroyed.—[To] the secretary of the king my lord Ebed-Tob [says:] Give a report of my words to the king my lord: the provinces of the king my lord are being destroyed by the enemy."

(III.) "[To] the king my lord [speaks] Ebed-Tob [thy] servant: [at the feet of the king] my lord seven [times seven I prostrate myself. Behold, let] the king [listen to] the words [of his servant].... Let [the king] consider all the districts which are leagued in hostility against me, and let the king send help to his country. Behold, the country of the city of Gezer, the country of the city of Ashkelon and the city of La[chish] have given as their peace offerings food and oil and whatsoever the fortress needs. And let the king send help to his troops; let him despatch troops against the men who have rebelled against the king my lord. If troops come this year, there will remain both provinces [and] governors to the king my lord; [but] if no troops arrive, there will remain no provinces or governors to the king [my lord]. Behold, neither my father nor my mother has given this country of the city of Jerusalem unto me: it was an oracle [of the Mighty King] that gave it to me, even to me. Behold, Malchiel and the sons of Labai have given the country of the king to the Confederates. Behold, the king my lord is righteous towards me. As to the Babylonians, let the king ask the commissioner how very strong is the temple-[fortress of Jerusalem.].... Thou hast delivered (?) the provinces into the hands of the city of Ash[kelon]. Let the king demand of them abundance of food, abundance of oil, and abundance of wine until Pa-ur, the commissioner of the king, comes up to the country of the city of Jerusalem to deliver Adai along with the garrison and the [rest of the people]. Let the king consider the [instructions] of the king; [let him] speak to me; let Adai deliver me—Thou wilt not desert it, even this city, sending to me a garrison [and] sending a royal commissioner. Thy grace [is] to send [them]. To the king [my lord] I have despatched [a number of] prisoners [and a number of] slaves. [I have looked after] the roads of the king in the plain (kikkar, Gen. xiii. 10) and in the mountains. Let the king my lord consider the city of Ajalon. I am not able to direct my way to the king my lord according to his instructions. Behold, the king has established his name in the country of Jerusalem for ever, and he cannot forsake the territories of the city of Jerusalem.—To the secretary of the king my lord thus speaks Ebed-Tob thy servant. At thy feet I prostrate myself. Thy servant am I. Lay a report of my words before the king my lord. The vassal of the king am I. Mayest thou live long!—And thou hast performed deeds which I cannot enumerate against the men of the land of Ethiopia.... The men of the country of the Babylonians [shall never enter] into my house...."

(IV.) (The beginning of the letter is lost, and it is not certain that Ebed-Tob was the writer of it.) "And now as to the city of Jerusalem, if this country is still the king's, why is Gaza made the seat of the king's government? Behold, the district of the city of Gath-Carmel has fallen away to Tagi and the men of Gath. He is in Bit-Sani (Beth-Sannah), and we have effected that they should give Labai and the country of the Sute to the men of the district of the Confederates. Malchiel has sent to Tagi and has seized some boy-slaves. He has granted all their requests to the men of Keilah, and we have delivered (or departed from) the city of Jerusalem. The garrison thou hast left in it is under the command of Apis the son of Miya-riya (Meri-Ra). Hadad-el has remained in his house in Gaza...."

(V.) "To the king my lord thus [speaks] Ebed-Tob thy servant: at the feet of my lord [the king] seven times seven [I prostrate myself]. Behold, Malchiel does not separate himself from the sons of Labai and the sons of Arzai to demand the country of the king for themselves. As for the governor who acts thus, why does not the king question him? Behold, Malchiel and Tagi are they who have acted so, since they have taken the city of Rubute (Rabbah, Josh. xv. 60).... (Many lines are lost here.) There is no royal garrison [in Jerusalem]. May the king live eternally! Let Pa-ur go down to him. He has departed in front of me and is in the city of Gaza; and let the king send to him a guard to defend the country. All the country of the king has revolted! Direct Yikhbil-Khamu [to come], and let him consider the country of the king [my lord].—To the secretary of the king [my lord] thus [speaks] Ebed-Tob thy servant: [at thy feet I prostrate myself]. Lay [a report] of my words [before] the king. Mayest thou live long! Thy servant am I."

(VI.) "[To] the king my lord thus speaks Ebed-Tob thy servant: at the feet of the king my lord seven times seven I prostrate myself. [The king knows the deed] which they have done, even Malchiel and Su-ardatum, against the country of the king my lord, commanding the forces of the city of Gezer, the forces of the city of Gath, and the forces of the city of Keilah. They have seized the district of the city of Rabbah. The country of the king has gone over to the Confederates. And now at this moment the city of the mountain of Jerusalem, the city of the temple of the god Nin-ip, whose name is Salim (?)," (Or, adopting the reading of Dr. Zimmern, "The city whose name is Bit-Nin-ip.") "the city of the king, is gone over to the side of the men of Keilah. Let the king listen to Ebed-Tob thy servant, and let him despatch troops and restore the country of the king to the king. But if no troops arrive, the country of the king is gone over to the men even to the Confederates. This is the deed [of Su-ar]datun and Malchiel...."

The loyalty of Ebed-Tob, however, seems to have been doubted at the Egyptian court, where more confidence was placed in his rival and enemy Su-ardata (or Su-yardata, as the owner of the name himself writes it). Possibly the claim of the vassal-king of Jerusalem to have been appointed to his royal office by the "Mighty King" rather than by the "great king" of Egypt, and consequently to be an ally of the Pharaoh and not an ordinary governor, may have had something to do with the suspicions that were entertained of him. At all events we learn from a letter of Su-yardata that the occupation of Keilah by Ebed-Tob's enemies, of which the latter complains so bitterly, was due to the orders of the Egyptian government itself. Su-yardata there says—"The king [my lord] directed me to make war in the city of Keilah: war was made; (and now) a complaint is brought against me. My city against myself has risen upon me. Ebed-Tob sends to the men of the city of Keilah; he sends silver, and they have marched against my rear. And the king knows that Ebed-Tob has taken my city from my hand." The writer adds that "now Labai has taken Ebed-Tob and they have taken our cities." In his subsequent despatches to the home government Su-yardata complains that he is "alone," and asks that troops should be sent to him, saying that he is forwarding some almehs or maidens as a present along with his "dragoman." At this point the correspondence breaks off.

Malchiel and Tagi also write to the Pharaoh. According to Tagi the roads between Southern Palestine and Egypt were under the supervision and protection of his brother; while Malchiel begs for cavalry to pursue and capture the enemy who had made war upon Su-yardata and himself, had seized "the country of the king," and threatened to slay his servants. He also complains of the conduct of Yankhamu, the High Commissioner, who had been ordered to inquire into the conduct of the governors in Palestine. Yankhamu, it seems, had seized Malchiel's property and carried off his wives and children. It was doubtless to this act of injustice that Labai alludes in his letter of exculpation.

The territory of which Jerusalem was the capital extended southward as far as Carmel of Judah, Gath-Carmel as it is called by Ebed-Tob, as well as in the geographical lists of Thothmes III., while on the west it reached to Keilah, Kabbah, and Mount Seir. No mention is made of Hebron either in the Tel el-Amarna letters or in the Egyptian geographical lists, which are earlier than the rise of the nineteenth dynasty. The town must therefore have existed under some other name, or have been in the hands of a power hostile to Egypt.

The name of Hebron has the same origin as that of the Khabiri, who appear in Ebed-Tob's letters by the side of Labai, Babylonia, and Naharaim as the assailants of Jerusalem and its territory. The word means "Confederates," and occurs in the Assyrian texts; among other passages in a hymn published by Dr. Bruennow, where we read, istu pan khabiri-ya iptarsanni, "from the face of my associates he has cut me off." The word, however, is not Assyrian, as in that case it would have had a different form, but must have been borrowed from the Canaanitish language of the West.

Who the Khabiri or "Confederates" were has been disputed. Some scholars see in them Elamite marauders who followed the march of the Babylonian armies to Syria. This opinion is founded on the fact that the Khabiri are once mentioned as an Elamite tribe, and that in a Babylonian document a "Khabirite" (Khabira) is referred to along with a "Kassite" or Babylonian. Another view is that they are to be identified with Heber, the grandson of Asher (Gen. xlvi. 17), since Malchiel is said to be the brother of Heber, just as in the letters of Ebed-Tob Malchiel is associated with the Khabiri. But all such identifications are based upon the supposition that "Khabiri" is a proper name rather than a descriptive title. Any band of "Confederates" could be called Khabiri whether in Elam or in Palestine, and it does not follow that the two bands were the same. In the "Confederates" of Southern Canaan we have to look for a body of confederated tribes who made themselves formidable to the governor of Jerusalem in the closing days of the Egyptian empire.

It would seem that Elimelech, who of course was a different person from Malchiel, was their leader, and as Elimelech is a Canaanitish name, we may conclude that the majority of his followers were also of Canaanitish descent. The scene of their hostilities was to the south of Jerusalem. Gath-Carmel, Zelah, and Lachish are the towns mentioned in connection with their attempts to capture and destroy "the fortresses of the king." "The country of the king" which had "gone over to the Confederates" was the territory over which Ebed-Tob claimed rule, while the district occupied by Labai and his Beduin followers was handed over "to the men of the district of the Confederates." The successes of the latter were gained through the intrigues of Malchiel and the sons of Labai.

All this leads us to the neighbourhood of Hebron, and suggests the question whether "the district of the Confederates" was not that of which Hebron, "the Confederacy," was the central meeting-place and sanctuary. Hebron has preserved its sacred character down to the present day; it long disputed with Jerusalem the claim of being the oldest and most hallowed shrine in Southern Palestine, and it was for many years the capital of Judah, Moreover, we know that "Hebron" was not the only name the city possessed. When Abram was "confederate" with the three Amorite chieftains it was known as Mamre (Gen. xiii. 18), and at a later day under the rule of the three sons of Anak it was called Kirjath-Arba.

According to the Biblical narrative Hebron was at once Amorite, Hittite, and Canaanite. Here, therefore, there was a confederation of tribes and races who would have met together at a common sanctuary. When Ezekiel says that Jerusalem was both Hittite and Amorite in its parentage, he may have been referring to its conquest and settlement by such a confederacy as that of Hebron. At all events we learn from Su-yardata's letter that Ebed-Tob eventually fell into the hands of his enemies; he was captured by Labai, and it is possible that his city became at the same time the prey of the Khabiri.

But all this is speculation, which may or may not prove to be correct. All we can be sure of is that the Khabiri or "Confederates" had their seat in the southern part of Palestine, and that we need not go outside Canaan to discover who they were. Ebed-Tob, at all events, carefully distinguishes them from either the Babylonians or the people of Naharaim.

In his letters, as everywhere else in the Tel el-Amarna correspondence, the Babylonians are called Kassi or Kassites. The name is written differently in the cuneiform texts from that of the Ethiopians, the Kash of the hieroglyphic inscriptions. Both, however, are alike represented in Hebrew by Cush, and hence we have not only a Cush who is the brother of Mizrairn, but also another Cush who is the father of Nimrod. The name of the latter takes us back to the age of the Tel el-Amarna tablets.

Nahrima, or Naharaim, was the name by which the kingdom of Mitanni was known to its Canaanite and Egyptian neighbours. Mitanni, in fact, was its capital, and it may be that Lutennu (or Lotan), as the Egyptians called Syria and Palestine, was but a mispronunciation of it. Along with the Babylonians the people of Naharaim had made themselves formidable to the inhabitants of Canaan, and their name was feared as far south as Jerusalem. Even the governor of the Canaanite town of Musikhuna, not far from the Sea of Galilee, bore the Mitannian name of Sutarna. It was not, indeed, until after the Israelitish conquest that the last invasion of Canaan by a king of Aram-Naharaim took place.

Gaza and Joppa were at one time under the same governor, Yabitiri, who in a letter which has come down to us asks to be relieved of the burden of his office. Ashkelon, however, which lay between the two sea-ports, was in the hands of another prefect, Yidya by name, from whom we have several letters, in one of which mention is made of the Egyptian commissioner Rianap, or Ra-nofer. The jurisdiction of Rianap extended as far north as the plain of Megiddo, since he is also referred to by Pu-Hadad, the governor of Yurza, now Yerzeh, south-eastward of Taanach. But it was more particularly in the extreme south of Palestine that the duties of this officer lay. Hadad-dan, who was entrusted with the government of Manahath and Tamar, to the west of the Dead Sea, calls him "my Commissioner" in a letter in which he complains of the conduct of a certain Beya, the son of "the woman Gulat." Hadad-dan begins by saying that he had protected the commissioner and cities of the king, and then adds that "the city of Tumur is hostile to me, and I have built a house in the city of Mankhate, so that the household troops of the king my lord may be sent to me; and lo, Baya has taken it from my hand, and has placed his commissioner in it, and I have appealed to Rianap, my commissioner, and he has restored the city unto me, and has sent the household troops of the king my lord to me." After this the writer goes on to state that Beya had also intrigued against the city of Gezer, "the handmaid of the king my lord who created me." The rebel then carried off a quantity of plunder, and it became necessary to ransom his prisoners for a hundred pieces of silver, while those of his confederate were ransomed for thirty pieces of silver.

The misdeeds of Beya or Baya did not end here. We hear of him again as attacking and capturing a body of soldiers who had been sent to defend the royal palace at Joppa, and as occupying that city itself. He was, however, subsequently expelled from it by the king's orders. Beya, too, professed to be an Egyptian governor and a faithful servant of the Pharaoh, to whom he despatched a letter to say that Yankhamu, the High Commissioner, was not in his district. Probably this was in answer to a charge brought against him by the Egyptian officer.

The official duties of Yankhamu extended over the whole of Palestine, and all the governors of its cities were accountable to him. We find him exercising his authority not only in the south, but also in the north, at Zemar and Gebal, and even among the Amorites. Amon-apt, to whom the superintendence of Phoenicia was more particularly entrusted, was supplied by him with corn, and frequent references are made to him in the letters of Rib-Hadad. Malchiel complained of his high-handed proceedings, and the complaint seems to have led to some confidential inquiries on the part of the home government, since we find a certain Sibti-Hadad writing in answer to the Pharaoh's questions that Yankhamu was a faithful servant of the king.

The country east of the Jordan also appears to have been within his jurisdiction. At all events the following letter was addressed to him by the governor Mut-Hadad, "the man of Hadad." "To Yankhamu my lord thus speaks Mut-Hadad thy servant: at the feet of my lord I prostrate myself. Since Mut-Hadad has declared in thy presence that Ayab has fled, and it is certified (?) that the king of Bethel has fled from before the officers of the king his lord, may the king my lord live, may the king my lord live! I pray thee ask Ben-enima, ask ... tadua, ask Isuya, if Ayab has been in this city of Bethel for [the last] two months. Ever since the arrival of [the image of] the god Merodach, the city of Astarti (Ashtaroth-Karnaim) has been assisted, because all the fortresses of the foreign land are hostile, namely, the cities of Udumu (Edom), Aduri (Addar), Araru, Mestu (Mosheh), Magdalim (Migdol), Khinianabi ('En han-nabi), Zarki-tsabtat, Khaini ('En), and Ibi-limma (Abel). Again after thou hadst sent a letter to me I sent to him (i.e. Ayab), [to wait] until thy arrival from thy journey; and he reached the city of Bethel and [there] they heard the news."

We learn from this letter that Edom was a "foreign country" unsubdued by the Egyptian arms. The "city of Edom," from which the country took its name, is again mentioned in the inscriptions of the Assyrian king Esar-haddon, and it was there that the Assyrian tax-gatherers collected the tribute of the Edomite nation. It would seem that the land of Edom stretched further to the north in the age of Khu-n-Aten than it did at a subsequent period of history, and that it encroached upon what was afterwards the territory of Moab. The name of the latter country is met with for the first time among the Asiatic conquests of Ramses II. engraved on the base of one of the colossal figures which stand in front of the northern pylon of the temple of Luxor; when the Tel el-Amarna letters were written Moab was included in the Canaanite province of Egypt.

A curious letter to Khu-n-Aten from Burnaburyas, the Babylonian king, throws a good deal of light on the nature of the Egyptian government in Canaan. Between the predecessors of the two monarchs there had been alliance and friendly intercourse, and nevertheless the Canaanitish subjects of the Pharaoh had committed an outrageous crime against some Babylonian merchants, which if left unpunished would have led to a rupture between the two countries. The merchants in question had entered Palestine under the escort of the Canaanite Ahitub, intending afterwards to visit Egypt. At En-athon, near Acre, however, "in the country of Canaan," Sum-Adda, or Shem-Hadad, the son of Balumme (Balaam), and Sutatna, or Zid-athon, the son of Saratum, [His name is written Zurata in the letter of Biridi, the governor of Megiddo; see above, p. 135.] who was governor of Acre, set upon them, killing some of them, maltreating others, and carrying away their goods. Burna-buryas therefore sent a special envoy, who was instructed to lay the following complaint before the Pharaoh: "Canaan is thy country and the king [of Acre is thy servant]. In thy country I have been injured; do thou punish [the offenders]. The silver which they carried off was a present [for thee], and the men who are my servants they have slain. Slay them and requite the blood [of my servants]. But if thou dost not put these men to death, [the inhabitants] of the high-road that belongs to me will turn and verily will slay thy ambassadors, and a breach will be made in the agreement to respect the persons of ambassadors, and I shall be estranged from thee. Shem-Hadad, having cut off the feet of one of my men, has detained him with him; and as for another man, Sutatna of Acre made him stand upon his head and then stood upon his face."

There are three letters in the Tel el-Amarna collection from Sutatna, or Zid-atna ("the god Zid has given") as he writes his name, in one of which he compares Akku or Acre with "the city of Migdol in Egypt." Doubtless satisfaction was given to the Babylonian king for the wrong that had been done to his subjects, though whether the actual culprits were punished may be questioned. There is another letter from Burna-buryas, in which reference is again made to the Canaanites. He there asserts that in the time of his father, Kurigalzu, they had sent to the Babylonian sovereign, saying: "Go down against Qannisat and let us rebel." Kuri-galzu, however, had refused to listen to them, telling them that if they wanted to break away from the Egyptian king and ally themselves "with another," they must find some one else to assist them. Burna-buryas goes on to declare that he was like-minded with his father, and had accordingly despatched an Assyrian vassal to assure the Pharaoh that he would carry on no intrigues with disaffected Canaanites. As the first part of his letter is filled with requests for gold for the adornment of a temple he was building at Babylon, such an assurance was very necessary. The despatches of Rib-Hadad and Ebed-Tob, however, go to show that in spite of his professions of friendship, the Babylonian monarch was ready to afford secret help to the insurgents in Palestine. The Babylonians were not likely to forget that they had once been masters of the country, or to regard the Egyptian empire in Asia with other than jealous eyes.

The Tel el-Amarna correspondence breaks off suddenly in the midst of a falling empire, with its governors in Canaan fighting and intriguing one against the other, and appealing to the Pharaoh for help that never came. The Egyptian commissioners are vainly endeavouring to restore peace and order, like General Gordon in the Soudan, while Babylonians and Mitannians, Hittites and Beduin are assailing the distracted province. The Asiatic empire of the eighteenth dynasty, however, did not wholly perish with the death of Khu-n-Aten. A picture in the tomb of prince Hui at Thebes shows that under the reign of his successor, Tut-ankh-Amon, the Egyptian supremacy was still acknowledged in some parts of Syria. The chiefs of the Lotan or Syrians are represented in their robes of many colours, some with white and others with brown skins, and coming before the Egyptian monarch with the rich tribute of their country. Golden trays full of precious stones, vases of gold and silver, the covers of which are in the form of the heads of gazelles and other animals, golden rings richly enamelled, horses, lions, and a leopard's skin—such are the gifts which they offer to the Pharaoh. It was the last embassy of the kind which was destined to come from Syria for many a day.

With the rise of the nineteenth dynasty and the restoration of a strong government at home, the Egyptians once more began to turn their eyes towards Palestine. Seti I. drove the Beduin before him from the frontiers of Egypt to those of "Canaan," and established a line of fortresses and wells along "the way of the Philistines," which ran by the shore of the Mediterranean to Gaza. The road was now open for him to the north along the sea-coast. We hear accordingly of his capture of Acre, Tyre, and Usu or Palaetyros, from whence he marched into the Lebanon and took Kumidi and Inu'am. One of his campaigns must have led him into the interior of Palestine, since in his list of conquered cities we find the names of Carmel and Beth-anoth, of Beth-el and Pahil or Pella, as well as of Qamham or Chimham (see Jer. xli. 17). Kadesh, "in the land of the Amorites," was captured by a sudden assault, and Seti claims to have defeated or received the submission of Alasiya and Naharaim, the Hittites and the Assyrians, Cyprus and Sangar. It would seem, however, that north of Kadesh he really made his way only along the coast as far as the Gulf of Antioch and Cilicia, overrunning towns and districts of which we know little more than the names.

Seti was succeeded by his son Ramses II., the Pharaoh of the Oppression, and the builder of Pithom and Ramses. His long reign of sixty-seven years lasted from 1348 B.C. to 1281 B.C. The first twenty-one years of it were occupied in the re-conquest of Palestine, and sanguinary wars with the Hittites. But these mountaineers of the north had established themselves too firmly in the old Egyptian province of Northern Syria to be dislodged. All the Pharaoh could effect was to stop their further progress towards the south, and to save Canaan from their grasp. The war between the two great powers of Western Asia ended at last through the sheer exhaustion of the rival combatants. A treaty of alliance, offensive and defensive, was drawn up between Ramses II. and Khata-sil, "the great king of the Hittites," and it was cemented by the marriage of the Pharaoh to the daughter of the Hittite prince. Syria was divided between the Hittites and Egyptians, and it was agreed that neither should under any pretext invade the territories of the other. It was also agreed that if either country was attacked by foreign foes or rebellious subjects, the other should come to its help. Political refugees, moreover, were to be delivered up to the sovereign from whom they had escaped, but it was stipulated that in this case they should receive a full pardon for the offences they had committed. The Hittite copy of the treaty was engraved on a silver plate, and the gods of Egypt and the Hittites were called upon to witness the execution of it.

The legendary exploits of Sesostris, that creation of Greek fancy and ignorance, were fastened upon Ramses II., whose long reign, inordinate vanity, and ceaseless activity as a builder made him one of the most prominent of the old Pharaohs. It was natural, therefore, at the beginning of hieroglyphic decipherment that the Greek accounts should be accepted in full, and that Ramses II. should have been regarded as the greatest of Egyptian conquerors. But further study soon showed that, in this respect at least, his reputation had little to support it. Like his monuments, too many of which are really stolen from his predecessors, or else sacrifice honesty of work to haste and pretentiousness, a large part of the conquests and victories that have been claimed for him was due to the imagination of the scribes. In the reaction which followed on this discovery, the modern historians of ancient Egypt were disposed to dispute his claim to be a conqueror at all. But we now know that such a scepticism was exaggerated, and though Ramses II. was not a conqueror like Thothmes III., he nevertheless maintained and extended the Asiatic empire which his father had recovered, and the lists of vanquished cities which he engraved on the walls of his temples were not mere repetitions of older catalogues, or the empty fictions of flattering chroniclers. Egyptian armies really marched once more into Northern Syria and the confines of Cilicia, and probably made their way to the banks of the Euphrates. We have no reason for denying that Assyrian troops may have been defeated by his arms, or that the king of Mitanni may have sent an embassy to his court. And we now have a good deal more than the indirect evidence of the treaty with the Hittites to show that Canaan was again a province of the Egyptian empire. The names of some of its cities which were captured in the early part of the Pharaoh's reign may still be read on the walls of the Ramesseum at Thebes. Among them are Ashkelon, Shalam or Jerusalem, Merom, and Beth-Anath, which were taken by storm in his eighth year. Dapul, "in the land of the Amorites," was captured at the same time, proving that the Egyptian forces penetrated as far as the Hittite frontiers. At Luxor other Canaanite names figure in the catalogue of vanquished states. Thus we have Carmel of Judah, Ir-shemesh and Hadashah (Josh. xv. 37), Gaza, Sela and Jacob-el, Socho, Yurza, and Korkha in Moab. The name of Moab itself appears for the first time among the subject nations, while we gather from a list of mining settlements, that Cyprus as well as the Sinaitic peninsula was under Egyptian authority.

A sarcastic account of the misadventures of a military officer in Palestine, which was written in the time of Ramses, is an evidence of the complete occupation of that country by the Egyptians. All parts of Canaan are alluded to in it, and as Dr. Max Mueller has lately pointed out, we find in it for the first time the names of Shechem and Kirjath-Sepher. Similar testimony is borne by a hieroglyphic inscription recently discovered by Dr. Schumacher on the so-called "Stone of Job" in the Hauran. The stone (Sakhrat 'Ayyub) is a monolith westward of the Sea of Galilee, and not far from Tel 'Ashtereh, the ancient Ashtaroth-Karnaim, which was a seat of Egyptian government in the time of Khu-n-Aten. The monolith is adorned with Egyptian sculptures and hieroglyphs. One of the sculptures represents a Pharaoh above whose likeness is the cartouche of Ramses II., while opposite the king, to the left, is the figure of a god who wears the crown of Osiris, but has a full face. Over the god is his name in hieroglyphics. The name, however, is not Egyptian, but seems to be intended for the Canaanite Yakin-Zephon or "Yakin of the North." It is plain, therefore, that we have here a monument testifying to the rule of Ramses II., but a monument which was erected by natives of the country to a native divinity. For a while the hieroglyphic writing of Egypt had taken the place formerly occupied by the cuneiform syllabary of Babylonia, and Egyptian culture had succeeded in supplanting that which had come from the East.

The nineteenth dynasty ended even more disastrously than the eighteenth. It is true that the great confederacy of northern and Libyan tribes which attacked Egypt by sea and land in the reign of Meneptah, the son and successor of Ramses II., was successfully repulsed, but the energy of the Egyptian power seemed to exhaust itself in the effort. The throne fell into the hands of usurpers, and the house of Ramses was swept away by civil war and anarchy. The government was seized by a Syrian, Arisu by name, and for a time Egypt was compelled to submit to a foreign yoke. The overthrow of the foreigner and the restoration of the native monarchy was due to the valour of Set-nekht, the founder of the twentieth dynasty and the father of Ramses III.

It was under one of the immediate successors of Ramses II. that the exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt must have taken place. Egyptian tradition pointed to Meneptah; modern scholars incline rather to his successors Seti II. and Si-Ptah. With this event the patriarchal history of Canaan ought properly to come to an end. But the Egyptian monuments still cast light upon it, and enable us to carry it on almost to the moment when Joshua and his followers entered the Promised Land.

Palestine still formed part of the kingdom of Meneptah, at all events in the earlier years of his reign. A scribe has left us a record of the officials who passed to and from Canaan through the frontier fortress of Zaru during the middle of the month Pakhons in the third year of the king. One of these was Baal- ... the son of Zippor of Gaza, who carried a letter for the Egyptian overseer of the Syrian peasantry (or Perizzites), as well as another for Baal-[sa]lil-ga[b]u, the vassal-prince of Tyre. Another messenger was Sutekh-mes, the son of 'Aper-dagar, who also carried a despatch to the overseer of the peasantry, while a third envoy came in the reverse direction, from the city of Meneptah, "in the land of the Amorites."

In the troubles which preceded the accession of the twentieth dynasty the Asiatic possessions of Egypt were naturally lost, and were never again recovered. Ramses III., however, the last of the conquering Pharaohs, made at least one campaign in Palestine and Syria. Like Meneptah, he had to bear the brunt of an attack upon Egypt by the confederated hordes of the north which threatened to extinguish its civilization altogether. The nations of Asia Minor and the AEgean Sea had poured into Syria as the northern barbarians in later days poured into the provinces of the Roman Empire. Partly by land, partly by sea, they made their way through Phoenicia and the land of the Hittites, destroying everything as they went, and carrying in their train the subjugated princes of Naharaim and Kadesh. For a time they encamped in the "land of the Amorites," and then pursued their southward march. Ramses III. met them on the north-eastern frontier of his kingdom, and in a fiercely-contested battle utterly overthrew them. The ships of the invaders were captured or sunk, and their forces on land were decimated. Immense quantities of booty and prisoners were taken, and the shattered forces of the enemy retreated into Syria. There the Philistines and Zakkal possessed themselves of the sea-coast, and garrisoned the cities of the extreme south. Gaza ceased to be an Egyptian fortress, and became instead an effectual barrier to the Egyptian occupation of Canaan.

When Ramses III. followed the retreating invaders of his country into Syria, it is doubtful whether the Philistines had as yet settled themselves in their future home. At all events Gaza fell into his hands, and he found no difficulty in marching along the Mediterranean coast like the conquering Pharaohs who had preceded him. In his temple palace at Medinet Habu he has left a record of the conquests that he made in Syria. The great cities of the coast were untouched. No attempt was made to besiege or capture Tyre and Sidon, Beyrout and Gebal, and the Egyptian army marched past them, encamping on the way only at such places as "the headland of Carmel," "the source of the Magoras," or river of Beyrout, and the Bor or "Cistern." Otherwise its resting-places were at unknown villages like Inzath and Lui-el. North of Beyrout it struck eastward through the gorge of the Nahr el-Kelb, and took the city of Kumidi. Then it made its way by Shenir or Hermon to Hamath, which surrendered, and from thence still northward to "the plain" of Aleppo.

In the south of Palestine, in what was afterwards the territory of Judah, Ramses made yet another campaign. Here he claims to have taken Lebanoth and Beth-Anath, Carmel of Judah and Shebtin, Jacob-el and Hebron, Libnah and Aphek, Migdal-gad and Ir-Shemesh, Hadashah and the district of Salem or Jerusalem. From thence the Egyptian forces proceeded to the Lake of Reshpon or the Dead Sea, and then crossing the Jordan seized Korkha in Moab. But the campaign was little more than a raid; it left no permanent results behind it, and all traces of Egyptian authority disappeared with the departure of the Pharaoh's army. Canaan remained the prey of the first resolute invader who had strength and courage at his back.



CHAPTER IV

THE PATRIARCHS

Abraham had been born in "Ur of the Chaldees." Ur lay on the western side of the Euphrates in Southern Babylonia, where the mounds of Muqayyar or Mugheir mark the site of the great temple that had been reared to the worship of the Moon-god long before the days of the Hebrew patriarch. Here Abraham had married, and from hence he had gone forth with his father to seek a new home in the west. Their first resting-place had been Harran in Mesopotamia, on the high-road to Syria and the Mediterranean. The name of Harran, in fact, signified "road" in the old language of Chaldaea, and for many ages the armies and merchants of Babylonia had halted there when making their way towards the Mediterranean. Like Ur, it was dedicated to the worship of Sin, the Moon-god, and its temple rivalled in fame and antiquity that of the Babylonian city, and had probably been founded by a Babylonian king.

At Harran, therefore, Abraham would still have been within the limits of Babylonian influence and culture, if not of Babylonian government as well. He would have found there the same religion as that which he had left behind him in his native city; the same deity was adored there, under the same name and with the same rites. He was indeed on the road to Canaan, and among an Aramaean rather than a Babylonian population, but Babylonia with its beliefs and civilization had not as yet been forsaken. Even the language of Babylonia was known in his new home, as is indicated by the name of the city itself.

Harran and Mesopotamia were not the goal of the future father of the Israelitish people. He was bidden to seek elsewhere another country and another kindred. Canaan was the land which God promised to "show" to him, and it was in Canaan that his descendants were to become "a great nation." He went forth, accordingly, "to go into the land of Canaan, and into the land of Canaan he came."

But even in Canaan Abraham was not beyond the reach of Babylonian influence. As we have seen in the last chapter, Babylonian armies had already penetrated to the shores of the Mediterranean, Palestine had been included within the bounds of a Babylonian empire, and Babylonian culture and religion had spread widely among the Canaanitish tribes. The cuneiform system of writing had made its way to Syria, and Babylonian literature had followed in its wake. Centuries had already passed since Sargon of Akkad had made himself master of the Mediterranean coast and his son Naram-Sin had led his forces to the Peninsula of Sinai. Istar of Babylonia had become Ashtoreth of the Canaanites, and Babylonian trade had long moved briskly along the very road that Abraham traversed. In the days of the patriarch himself the rulers of Babylonia claimed to be also rulers of Canaan; for thirteen years did the Canaanite princes "serve" Chedor-laomer and his allies, the father of Arioch is also "the father of the land of the Amorites" in his son's inscriptions, and at a little later date the King of Babylon still claimed sovereignty over the West.

It was not, therefore, to a strange and unexplored country that Abraham had migrated. The laws and manners to which he had been accustomed, the writing and literature which he had learned in the schools of Ur, the religious beliefs among which he had lived in Chaldaea and Harran, he found again in Canaan. The land of his adoption was full of Babylonian traders, soldiers, and probably officials as well, and from time to time he must have heard around him the language of his birthplace. The introduction into the West of the Babylonian literature and script brought with it a knowledge of the Babylonian language, and the knowledge is reflected in some of the local names of Palestine. The patriarch had not escaped beyond the control even of the Babylonian government. At times, at all events, the princes of Canaan were compelled to acknowledge the suzerainty of Chaldaea and obey the laws, as the Babylonians would have said, of "Anu and Dagon."

The fact needs dwelling upon, partly because of its importance, partly because it is but recently that we have begun to realize it. It might indeed have been gathered from the narratives of Genesis, more especially from the account of Chedor-laomer's campaign, but it ran counter to the preconceived ideas of the modern historian, and never therefore took definite shape in his mind. It is one of the many gains that the decipherment of the cuneiform inscriptions has brought to the student of the Old Testament, and it makes us understand the story of Abraham's migration in a way that was never possible before. He was no wild nomad wandering in unknown regions, among a people of alien habits and foreign civilization. We know now why he took the road which we are told he followed; why he was able to make allies among the inhabitants of Canaan; why he understood their language and could take part in their social life. Like the Englishman who migrates to a British colony, Abraham was in contact with the same culture in Canaan and Chaldaea alike.

But when he reached Canaan he was not yet Abraham. He was still "Abram the Hebrew," and it was as "Abram the Hebrew" that he made alliance with the Amorites of Mamre and overthrew the retreating forces of the Babylonian kings. Abram—Abu-ramu, "the exalted father,"—is a Babylonian name, and is found in contracts of the age of Chedor-laomer. When the name was changed to Abraham, it was a sign that the Babylonian emigrant had become a native of the West.

It was under the terebinth of Moreh before Shechem that Abraham first pitched his tent and erected his first altar to the Lord. Above him towered Ebal and Gerizim, where the curses and blessings of the Law were afterwards to be pronounced. From thence he moved southward to one of the hills westward of Beth-el, the modern Beitin, and there his second altar was built. While the first had been reared in the plain, the second was raised on the mountain-slope.

But here too he did not remain long. Again he "journeyed, going on still towards the south." Then came a famine which obliged him to cross the frontier of Egypt, and visit the court of the Pharaoh. The Hyksos kinsmen of the race to which he belonged were ruling in the Delta, and a ready welcome was given to the Asiatic stranger. He was "very rich in cattle, in silver and in gold," and like a wealthy Arab sheikh to-day was received with due honour in the Egyptian capital. The court of the Pharaoh was doubtless at Zoan.

Among the possessions of the patriarch we are told were camels. The camel is not included among the Egyptian hieroglyphs, nor has it been found depicted on the walls of the Egyptian temples and tombs. The name is first met with in a papyrus of the time of the nineteenth dynasty, and is one of the many words which the Egyptians of that age borrowed from their Canaanitish neighbours. The animal, in fact, was not used by the Egyptians, and its domestication in the valley of the Nile seems to be as recent as the Arab conquest. But though it was not used by the Egyptians, it had been a beast of burden among the Semites of Arabia from an early period. In the primitive Sumerian language of Chaldaea it was called "the animal from the Persian Gulf," and its Semitic name, from which our own word camel is derived, goes back to the very beginnings of Semitic history. We cannot, therefore, imagine a Semitic nomad arriving in Egypt without the camel; travellers, indeed, from the cities of Canaan might do so, but not those who led a purely nomadic life. And, in fact, though we look in vain for a picture of the camel among the sculptures and paintings of Egypt, the bones of the animal have been discovered deep in the alluvial soil of the valley of the Nile.

Abraham had to quit Egypt, and once more he traversed the desert of the "South" and pitched his tent near Beth-el. Here his nephew Lot left him, and, dissatisfied with the life of a wandering Bedawi, took up his abode in the city of Sodom at the northern end of the Dead Sea. While Abraham kept himself separate from the natives of Canaan, Lot thus became one of them, and narrowly escaped the doom which afterwards fell upon the cities of the plain. In forsaking the tent, he forsook not only the free life of the immigrant from Chaldaea, but the God of Abraham as well. The inhabitant of a Canaanitish city passed under the influence of its faith and worship, its morals and manners, as well as its laws and government. He ceased to be an alien and stranger, of a different race and fatherland, and with a religion and customs of his own. He could intermarry with the natives of his adopted country and participate in their sacred rites. Little by little his family became merged in the population that surrounded him; its gods became their gods, its morality—or, it may be, its immorality—became theirs also. Lot, indeed, had eventually to fly from Sodom, leaving behind him all his wealth; but the mischief had already been done, and his children had become Canaanites in thought and deed. The nations which sprang from him, though separate in race from the older people of Canaan, were yet like them in other respects. They formed no "peculiar people," to whom the Lord might reveal Himself through the law and the prophets.

It was not until Lot had separated himself from Abraham that the land of Canaan was promised to the descendants of the patriarch. "Lift up now thine eyes," God said to him, "and look from the place where thou art, northward and southward, and eastward and westward: for all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever." Once more, therefore, Abraham departed southward from Shechem; not this time to go into the land of Egypt, but to dwell beside the terebinth-oak of Mamre hard by Hebron, where the founder of the Davidic monarchy was hereafter to be crowned king. It is probable that the sanctuary which in days to come was to make Hebron famous had not as yet been established there; at all events the name of Hebron, "the confederacy," was not as yet known, and the city was called Kirjath-Arba. Whether it was also called Mamre is doubtful; Mamre would rather seem to have been the name of the plateau which stretched beyond the valley of Hebron and was occupied by the Amorite confederates of the Hebrew patriarch.

It was while he "dwelt under the terebinth of Mamre the Amorite" that the campaign of Chedor-laomer and his Babylonian allies took place, and that Lot was carried away among the Canaanitish captives. But the triumph of the conquerors was short-lived. "Abram the Hebrew" pursued them with his armed followers, three hundred and eighteen in number, as well as with his Amorite allies, and suddenly falling upon their rear-guard near Damascus by night, rescued the captives and the spoil. There was rejoicing in the Canaanitish cities when the patriarch returned with his booty. The new king of Sodom met him in the valley of Shaveh, "the king's dale" of later times, just outside the walls of Jerusalem, and the king of Jerusalem himself, Melchizedek, "the priest of the most High God," welcomed the return of the victor with bread and wine. Then it was that Abram gave tithes of the spoil to the God of Salem, while Melchizedek blessed him in the name of "the most High God."

Outside the pages of the Old Testament the special form assumed by the blessing has been found only in the Aramaic inscriptions of Egypt. Here too we find travellers from Palestine writing of themselves "Blessed be Augah of Isis," or "Blessed be Abed-Nebo of Khnum"! It would seem, therefore, to have been a formula peculiar to Canaan; at all events, it has not been traced to other parts of the Semitic world. The temple of the Most High God—El Elyon—probably stood on Mount Moriah where the temple of the God of Israel was afterwards to be erected. It will be remembered that among the letters sent by Ebed-Tob, the king of Jerusalem, to the Egyptian Pharaoh is one in which he speaks of "the city of the Mountain of Jerusalem, whose name is the city of the temple of the god Nin-ip." In this "Mountain of Jerusalem" it is difficult not to see the "temple-Mount" of later days.

In the cuneiform texts of Ebed-Tob and the later Assyrian kings the name of Jerusalem is written Uru-Salim, "the city of Salim." Salim or "Peace" is almost certainly the native name of the god who was identified with the Babylonian Nin-ip, and perhaps Isaiah—that student of the older history of his country—is alluding to the fact when he declares that one of the titles of the Messiah shall be "the Prince of Peace." At any rate, if the Most High God of Jerusalem were really Salim, the God of Peace, we should have an explanation of the blessing pronounced by Melchizedek upon the patriarch. Abram's victory had restored peace to Canaan; he had brought back the captives, and had himself returned in peace. It was fitting, therefore, that he should be welcomed by the priest of the God of Peace, and that he should offer tithes of the booty he had recovered to the god of "the City of Peace."

This offering of tithes was no new thing. In his Babylonian home Abraham must have been familiar with the practice. The cuneiform inscriptions of Babylonia contain frequent references to it. It went back to the pre-Semitic age of Chaldaea, and the great temples of Babylonia were largely supported by the esra or tithe which was levied upon prince and peasant alike. That the god should receive a tenth of the good things which, it was believed, he had bestowed upon mankind, was not considered to be asking too much. There are many tablets in the British Museum which are receipts for the payment of the tithe to the great temple of the Sun-god at Sippara in the time of Nebuchadrezzar and his successors. From one of them we learn that Belshazzar, even at the very moment when the Babylonian empire was falling from his father's hands, nevertheless found an opportunity for paying the tithe due from his sister; while others show us that Cyrus and Cambyses did not regard their foreign origin as affording any pretext for refusing to pay tithe to the gods of the kingdom they had overthrown.

The Babylonian army had been defeated near Damascus, and immediately after this we are told that the steward of Abraham's house was "Eli-ezer of Damascus." Whether there is any connection between the two facts we cannot say; but it may be that Eli-ezer had attached himself to the Hebrew conqueror when he was returning "from the slaughter of Chedor-laomer." The name of Eli-ezer, "God is a help," is characteristic of Damascus. More often in place of El, "God," we have Hadad, the supreme deity of Syria; but just as among the Israelites Eli-akim and Jeho-iakim are equivalent, so among the Aramaeans of Syria were Eli-ezer and Hadad-ezer. Hadad-ezer, it will be remembered, was the king of Zobah who was overthrown by David.

Sarai, the wife of Abraham, was still childless, but the patriarch had a son by his Egyptian handmaid, the ancestor of the Ishmaelite tribes who spread from the frontier of Egypt to Mecca in Central Arabia. It was when Ishmael was thirteen years of age that the covenant was made between God and Abraham which was sealed with the institution of circumcision. Circumcision had been practised in Egypt from the earliest days of its history; henceforth it also distinguished all those who claimed Abraham as their forefather. With circumcision Abraham received the name by which he was henceforth to be known; he ceased to be Abram, the Hebrew from Babylonia, and became Abraham the father of Ishmael and Israel. The new rite and the new name were alike the seal and token of the covenant established between the patriarch and his God: God promised that his seed should multiply, and that the land of Canaan should be given as an everlasting possession, while Abraham and his offspring were called upon to keep God's covenant for ever.

It could not have been long after this that the cities of the plain were destroyed "with brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven." The expression is found in the cuneiform tablets of Babylonia. Old Sumerian hymns spoke of a "rain of stones and fire," though the stones may have been hail-stones and thunderbolts, and the fire the flash of the lightning. But whatever may have been the nature of the sheet of flame which enveloped the guilty cities of the plain and set on fire the naphtha-springs that oozed out of it, the remembrance of the catastrophe survived to distant ages. The prophets of Israel and Judah still refer to the overthrow of Sodom and its sister cities, and St. Jude points to them as "suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." Some scholars have seen an allusion to their overthrow in the tradition of the Phoenicians which brought their ancestors into the coastlands of Canaan in consequence of an earth-quake on the shores of "the Assyrian Lake." But the lake is more probably to be looked for in the neighbourhood of the Persian Gulf than in the valley of the Jordan.

The vale of Siddim, and "the cities of the plain," stood at the northern end of the Dead Sea. Here were the "slime-pits" from which the naphtha was extracted, and which caused the defeat of the Canaanitish princes by the Babylonian army. The legend which placed the pillar of salt into which Lot's wife was changed at the southern extremity of the Dead Sea was of late origin, probably not earlier than the days when Herod built his fortress of Machaerus on the impregnable cliffs of Moab, and the name of Gebel Usdum, given by the modern Arabs to one of the mountain-summits to the south of the sea proves nothing as to the site of the city of Sodom. Names in the east are readily transferred from one locality to another, and a mountain is not the same as a city in a plain.

There are two sufficient reasons why it is to the north rather than to the south that we must look for the remains of the doomed cities, among the numerous tumuli which rise above the rich and fertile plain in the neighbourhood of Jericho, where the ancient "slime-pits" can still be traced. Geology has taught us that throughout the historical period the Dead Sea and the country immediately to the south of it have undergone no change. What the lake is to-day, it must have been in the days of Abraham. It has neither grown nor shrunk in size, and the barren salt with which it poisons the ground must have equally poisoned it then. No fertile valley, like the vale of Siddim, could have existed in the south; no prosperous Canaanitish cities could have grown up among the desolate tracts of the southern wilderness. As we are expressly told in the Book of Numbers (xiii. 29), the Canaanites dwelt only "by the coast of Jordan," not in the desert far beyond the reach of the fertilizing stream.

But there is another reason which excludes the southern site. "When Abraham got up early in the morning," we are told, "he looked towards Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace." Such a sight was possible from the hills of Hebron; if the country lay at the northern end of the Dead Sea, it would have been impossible had it been south of it.

Moreover, the northern situation of the cities alone agrees with the geography of Genesis. When the Babylonian invaders had turned northwards after smiting the Amalekites of the desert south of the Dead Sea, they did not fall in with the forces of the king of Sodom and his allies until they had first passed "the Amorites that dwelt in Hazezon-tamar." Hazezon-tamar, as we learn from the Second Book of Chronicles (xx. 2), was the later En-gedi, "the Spring of the Kid," and En-gedi lay on the western shore of the Dead Sea midway between its northern and southern extremities.

In the warm, soft valley of the Jordan, accordingly, where a sub-tropical vegetation springs luxuriantly out of the fertile ground and the river plunges into the Dead Sea as into a tomb, the nations of Ammon and Moab were born. It was a fitting spot, in close proximity as it was to the countries which thereafter bore their names. From the mountain above Zoar, Lot could look across to the blue hills of Moab and the distant plateau of Ammon.

Meanwhile Abraham had quitted Mamre and again turned his steps towards the south. This time it was at Gerar, between the sanctuary of Kadesh-barnea and Shur the "wall" of Egypt that he sojourned. Kadesh has been found again in our own days by the united efforts of Dr. John Rowlands and Dr. Clay Trumbull in the shelter of a block of mountains which rise to the south of the desert of Beer-sheba. The spring of clear and abundant water which gushes forth in their midst was the En-Mishpat—"the spring where judgments were pronounced"—of early times, and is still called 'Ain-Qadis, "the spring of Kadesh." Gerar is the modern Umm el-Jerar, now desolate and barren, all that remains of its past being a lofty mound of rubbish and a mass of potsherds. It lies a few hours only to the south of Gaza.

Here Isaac was born and circumcised, and here Ishmael and Hagar were cast forth into the wilderness and went to dwell in the desert of Paran. The territory of Gerar extended to Beer-sheba, "the well of the oath," where Abraham's servants digged a well, and Abimelech, king of Gerar, confirmed his possession of it by an oath. It may be that one of the two wells which still exist at Wadi es-Seba', with the stones that line their mouths deeply indented by the ropes of the water-drawers, is the very one around which the herdsmen of Abraham and Abimelech wrangled with each other. The wells of the desert go back to a great antiquity: where water is scarce its discovery is not easily forgotten, and the Beduin come with their flocks year after year to drink of it. The old wells are constantly renewed, or new ones dug by their side.

Gerar was in that south-western corner of Palestine which in the age of the Exodus was inhabited by the Philistines. But they had been new-comers. All through the period of the eighteenth and nineteenth Egyptian dynasties the country had been in the hands of the Egyptians. Gaza had been their frontier fortress, and as late as the reign of Meneptah, the son of the Pharaoh of the Oppression, it was still garrisoned by Egyptian troops and governed by Egyptian officers. The Pulsata or Philistines did not arrive till the troublous days of Ramses III., of the twentieth dynasty. They formed part of the barbarian hordes from the shores of Asia Minor and the islands of the AEgean, who swarmed over Syria and flung themselves on the valley of the Nile, and the land of Caphtor from which they came was possibly the island of Krete. The Philistine occupation of the coastland of Canaan, therefore, did not long precede the Israelitish invasion of the Promised Land; indeed we may perhaps gather from the words of Exod. xiii. 17 that the Philistines were already winning for themselves their new territory when the Israelites marched out of Egypt. In saying, consequently, that the kingdom of Abimelech was in the land of the Philistines the Book of Genesis speaks proleptically: when the story of Abraham and Abimelech was written in its present form Gerar was a Philistine town: in the days of the patriarchs this was not yet the case.

At Beer-sheba Abraham planted a tamarisk, and "called on the name of the Lord, the everlasting God." Beer-sheba long remained one of the sacred places of Palestine. The tree planted by its well was a sign both of the water that flowed beneath its soil and of its sacred character. It was only where fresh water was found that the nomads of the desert could come together, and the tree was a token of the life and refreshment they would meet with. The well was sacred; so also was the solitary tree which stood beside it, and under whose branches man and beast could find shade and protection from the mid-day heat. Even Mohammedanism, that Puritanism of the East, has not been able to eradicate the belief in the divine nature of such trees from the mind of the nomad; we may still see them decorated with offerings of rags torn from the garments of the passer-by or shading the tomb of some reputed saint. They are still more than waymarks or resting-places for the heated and weary; when standing beneath them the herdsman feels that he is walking upon consecrated ground.

It was at Beer-sheba that the temptation came to Abraham to sacrifice his first-born, his only son Isaac. The temptation was in accordance with the fierce ritual of Syria, and traces of the belief which had called it into existence are to be found in the early literature of Babylonia. Thus in an ancient Babylonian ritual-text we read: "The offspring who raises his head among mankind, the offspring for his life he gave; the head of the offspring for the head of the man he gave; the neck of the offspring for the neck of the man he gave." Phoenician legend told how the god El had robed himself in royal purple and sacrificed his only son Yeud in a time of pestilence, and the writers of Greece and Rome describe with horror the sacrifices of the first-born with which the history of Carthage was stained. The father was called upon in time of trouble to yield up to the god his nearest and dearest; the fruit of his body could alone wipe away the sin of his soul, and Baal required him to sacrifice without a murmur or a tear his first-born and his only one. The more precious the offering, the more acceptable was it to the god; the harder the struggle to resign it, the greater was the merit of doing so. The child died for the sins of his people; and the belief was but the blind and ignorant expression of a true instinct.

But Abraham was to be taught a better way. For three days he journeyed northward with his son, and then lifting up his eyes saw afar off that mountain "in the land of Moriah," on the summit of which the sacrifice was to be consummated. Alone with Isaac he ascended to the high-place, and there building his altar and binding to it his son he prepared to perform the terrible rite. But at the last moment his hand was stayed, a new and better revelation was made to him, and a ram was substituted for his son. It cannot be accidental that, as M. Clermont-Ganneau has pointed out, we learn from the temple-tariffs of Carthage and Marseilles that in the later ritual of Phoenicia a ram took the place of the earlier human sacrifice.

Where was this mountain in the land of Moriah whereon the altar of Abraham was built? It would seem from a passage in the Second Book of Chronicles (iii. 1) that it was the future temple-mount at Jerusalem. The words of Genesis also point in the same direction. Abraham, we read, "called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen." It is hard to believe that "the mount of the Lord" can mean anything else than that har-el or "mountain of God" whereon Ezekiel places the temple, or that the proverb can refer to a less holy spot than that where the Lord appeared enthroned upon the cherubim above the mercy-seat. It is doubtful, however, whether the reading of the Hebrew text in either passage is correct. According to the Septuagint the proverb quoted in Genesis should run: "In the mountain is the Lord seen," and the same authority changes the "Moriah" of the Book of Chronicles into Amor-eia, "of the Amorites."

It is true that the distance of Jerusalem from Beer-sheba would agree well with the three days' journey of Abraham. But it is difficult to reconcile the description of the scene of Abraham's sacrifice with the future temple-mount. Where Isaac was bound to the altar was a solitary spot, the patriarch and his son were alone there, and it was overgrown with brushwood so thickly that a ram had been caught in it by his horns. The temple-mount, on the contrary, was either within the walls of a city or just outside them, and the city was already a capital famous for its worship of "the most High God." Had the Moriah of Jerusalem really been the site of Abraham's altar it is strange that no allusion is made to the fact by the writers of the Old Testament, or that tradition should have been silent on the matter. We must be content with the knowledge that it was to one of the mountains "in the land of Moriah" that Abraham was led, and that "Moriah" was a "land," not a single mountain-peak. (We should not forget that the Septuagint reads "the highlands," that is, Moreh instead of Moriah, while the Syriac version boldly changes the word into the name of the "Amorites." For arguments on the other side, see p. 79.)

Abraham returned to Beer-sheba, and from thence went to Hebron, where Sarah died. Hebron—or Kirjath-Arba as it was then called—was occupied by a Hittite tribe, in contradistinction to the country round about it, which was in the possession of the Amorites. As at Jerusalem, or at Kadesh on the Orontes, the Hittites had intruded into Amoritish territory and established themselves in the fortress-town. But while the Hittite city was known as Kirjath-Arba, "the city of Arba," the Amoritish district was named Mamre: the union of Kirjath-Arba and Mamre created the Hebron of a later day.

Kirjath-Arba seems to have been built in the valley, close to the pools which still provide water for its modern inhabitants. On the eastern side the slope of the hill is honeycombed with tombs cut in the rock, and, if ancient tradition is to be believed, it was in one of these that Abraham desired to lay the body of his wife. The "double cave" of Machpelah—for so the Septuagint renders the phrase—was in the field of Ephron the Hittite, and from Ephron, accordingly, the Hebrew patriarch purchased the land for 400 shekels of silver, or about L47. The cave, we are told, lay opposite Mamre, which goes to show that the oak under which Abraham once pitched his tent may not have been very far distant from that still pointed out as the oak of Mamre in the grounds of the Russian hospice. The traditional tomb of Machpelah has been venerated alike by Jew, Christian, and Mohammedan. The church built over it in Byzantine days and restored by the Crusaders to Christian worship has been transformed into a mosque, but its sanctity has remained unchanged. It stands in the middle of a court, enclosed by a solid wall of massive stones, the lower courses of which were cut and laid in their places in the age of Herod. The fanatical Moslem is unwilling that any but himself should enter the sacred precincts, but by climbing the cliff behind the town it is possible to look down upon the mosque and its sacred enclosure, and see the whole building spread out like a map below the feet.

More than one English traveller has been permitted to enter the mosque, and we are now well acquainted with the details of its architecture. But the rock-cut tomb in which the bodies of the patriarchs are supposed to have lain has never been examined by the explorer. It is probable, however, that were he to penetrate into it he would find nothing to reward his pains. During the long period that Hebron was in Christian hands the cave was more than once visited by the pilgrim. But we look in vain in the records which have come down to us for an account of the relics it has been supposed to contain. Had the mummified corpses of the patriarchs been preserved in it, the fact would have been known to the travellers of the Crusading age. (See the Zeitschrift des deutschen Palaestina-Vereins, 1895.)

Like the other tombs in its neighbourhood, the cave of Machpelah has doubtless been opened and despoiled at an early epoch. We know that tombs were violated in Egypt long before the days of Abraham, in spite of the penalties with which such acts of sacrilege were visited, and the cupidity of the Canaanite was no less great than that of the Egyptian. The treasures buried with the dead were too potent an attraction, and the robber of the tomb braved for their sake the terrors of both this world and the next.

Abraham now sent his servant to Mesopotamia, to seek there for a wife for his son Isaac from among his kinsfolk at Harran. Rebekah, the sister of Laban, accordingly, was brought to Canaan and wedded to her cousin. Isaac was at the time in the southern desert, encamped at the well of Lahai-roi, near Kadesh. So "Isaac was comforted after his mother's death."

"Then again," we are told, "Abraham took a wife," whose name was Keturah, and by whom he was the forefather of a number of Arabian tribes. They occupied the northern and central parts of the Arabian peninsula, by the side of the Ishmaelites, and colonized the land of Midian. It is the last we hear of the great patriarch. He died soon afterwards "in a good old age," and was buried at Machpelah along with his wife.

Isaac still dwell at Lahai-roi, and there the twins, Esau and Jacob, were born to him. There, too, he still was when a famine fell upon the land, like "the first famine that was in the days of Abraham." The story of Abraham's dealings with Abimelech of Gerar is repeated in the case of Isaac. Again we hear of Phichol, the captain of Abimelech's army; again the wife of the patriarch is described as his sister; and again his herdsmen strive with those of the king of Gerar over the wells they have dug, and the well of Beer-sheba is made to derive its name from the oaths sworn mutually by Isaac and the king. It is hardly conceivable that history could have so closely repeated itself, that the lives of the king and commander-in-chief of Gerar could have extended over so many years, or that the origin of the name of Beer-sheba would have been so quickly forgotten. Rather we must believe that two narratives have been mingled together, and that the earlier visit of Abraham to Gerar has coloured the story of Isaac's sojourn in the territory of Abimelech. We need not refuse to believe that the servants of Isaac dug wells and wrangled over them with the native herdsmen; that Beer-sheba should twice have received its name from a repetition of the same event is a different matter. One of the wells—that of Rehoboth—made by Isaac's servants is probably referred to in the Egyptian Travels of a Mohar, where it is called Rehoburta.

Isaac was not a wanderer like his father. Lahai-roi in the desert, "the valley of Gerar," Beer-sheba and Hebron, were the places round which his life revolved, and they were all close to one another. There is no trace of his presence in the north of Palestine, and when the prophet Amos (vii. 16) makes Isaac synonymous with the northern kingdom of Israel, there can be no geographical reference in his words. Isaac died eventually at Hebron, and was buried in the family tomb of Machpelah.

But long before this happened Jacob had fled from the well-deserved wrath of his brother to his uncle Laban at Harran. On his way he had slept on the rocky ridge of Bethel, and had beheld in vision the angels of God ascending and descending the steps of a staircase that led to heaven. The nature of the ground itself must have suggested the dream. The limestone rock is fissured into steplike terraces, which seem formed of blocks of stone piled one upon the other, and rising upwards like a gigantic staircase towards the sky. On the hill that towers above the ruins of Beth-el, we may still fancy that we see before us the "ladder" of Jacob.

But the vision was more than a mere dream. God appeared in it to the patriarch, and repeated to him the promise that had been made to his fathers. Through Jacob, the younger of the twins, the true line of Abraham was to be carried on. When he awoke in the morning the fugitive recognized the real character of his dream. He took, accordingly, the stone that had served him for a pillow, and setting it up as an altar, poured oil upon it, and so made it a Beth-el, or "House of God," Henceforward it was a consecrated altar, a holy memorial of the God whose divinity had been mysteriously imparted to it.

The Semitic world was full of such Beth-els, or consecrated stones. They are referred to in the literature of ancient Babylonia, and an English traveller, Mr. Doughty, has found them still existing near the Tema of the Old Testament in Northern Arabia. In Phoenicia we are told that they abounded. The solitary rock in the desert or on the mountain-side seemed to the primitive Semite the dwelling-place of Deity; it rose up awe-striking and impressive in its solitary grandeur and venerable antiquity; it was a shelter to him from the heat of the sun, and a protection from the perils of the night. When his worship and adoration came in time to be transferred from the stone itself to the divinity it had begun to symbolize, it became an altar on which the libation of oil or wine might be poured out to the gods, and on the seals of Syria and the sculptured slabs of Assyria we accordingly find it transformed into a portable altar, and merged in the cone-like symbol of the goddess Asherah. The stone which had itself been a Beth-el wherein the Deity had his home, passed by degrees into the altar of the god whose actual dwelling-place was in heaven.

The Canaanitish city near which Jacob had raised the monument of his dream bore the name of Luz. In Israelitish days, however, the name of the monument was transferred to that of the city, and Luz itself was called the Beth-el, or "House of God." The god worshipped there when the Israelites first entered Canaan appears to have been entitled On,—a name derived, perhaps, from that of the city of the Sun-god in Egypt. Bethel was also Beth-On, "the temple of On," from whence the tribe of Benjamin afterwards took the name of Ben-Oni, "the Onite." Beth-On has survived into our own times, and the site of the old city is still known as Beitin.

It is not needful to follow the adventures of Jacob in Mesopotamia. His new home lay far away from the boundaries of Palestine, and though the kings of Aram-Naharaim made raids at times into the land of Canaan and caused their arms to be feared within the walls of Jerusalem, they never made any permanent conquests on the coasts of the Mediterranean. In the land of the Aramaeans Jacob is lost for awhile from the history of patriarchal Palestine.

When he again emerges, it is as a middle-aged man, rich in flocks and herds, who has won two wives as the reward of his labours, and is already the father of a family. He is on his way back to the country which had been promised to his seed and wherein he himself had been born. Laban, his father-in-law, robbed at once of his daughters and his household gods, is pursuing him, and has overtaken him on the spurs of Mount Gilead, almost within sight of his goal. There a covenant is made between the Aramaean and the Hebrew, and a cairn of stones is piled up to commemorate the fact. The cairn continued to bear a double name, the Aramaean name given to it by Laban, and the Canaanitish name of Galeed, "the heap of witnesses," by which it was called by Jacob. The double name was a sign of the two populations and languages which the cairn separated from one another. Northward were the Aramaeans and an Aramaic speech; southward the land of Canaan and the language which we term Hebrew.

The spot where the cairn was erected bore yet another title. It was also called Mizpah, the "watch-tower," the outpost from which the dweller in Canaan could discern the approaching bands of an enemy from the north or east. It protected the road to the Jordan, and kept watch over the eastern plateau. Here in after times Jephthah gathered around him the patriots of Israel, and delivered his people from the yoke of the Ammonites.