then there can be no objection for making the term the equivalent of entire Babylonia. But it must be remembered that Babylonia shifted its boundaries at various times, as has been the case with many other provinces or countries in every period of the world's history.

Now what are some of the chief arguments in favor of the ever growing claim that the Sumerians preceded the Semites in Babylonia?

First of all, it is an undeniable fact that the discoveries of the past few years, especially at Telloh (ancient Sirpurba or Lagash), Nippur, Bismya, and elsewhere have disclosed very convincing evidence of the presence of a race, highly cultured and civilized, which must have existed many centuries previous to the reign of Sargon I, who flourished about 3800 B. C. The ruins of these ancient capitals have produced abundant material, such as bas-relief, dolerite, and diorite inscriptions, seals, cylinders, and other antiquities of exquisite workmanship. Indeed, we are assured by competent judges that, if the marble slabs and other sculpture from Nineveh and Calah be compared with similar objects from Telloh, a supposed ancient capital of the Sumerians, the difference at once becomes evident. The former appear very modern and superior when contrasted with the latter.

Now, the so-called Sumerian monuments were found at a much greater depth than those which Assyriologists have agreed to date from the reign of Sargon I and his immediate successors. Then again, there is a real difference in the script itself. Everything about the Sumerian monuments appears archaic when placed side by side with the most ancient Semitic objects discovered in the same ruins.

Pinches tells us that the terms, "tongue of Sumer," and, the "tongue of Akkad" are found more than once in the Babylonian inscriptions. Accepting, then, the fact of a Sumerian language let us now inquire into its nature. Schrader pointed out many years ago that this language was neither Semitic nor Indo-germanic, but in its construction, agglutinative rather than inflectional-something similar to the Finno-tartaric or Turkish. Those who deny the existence of the Sumerian people naturally maintain that there never was such a language as the Sumerian. They assure us that what has been regarded as such was nothing more nor less than a system of cryptograms in which the priestly class concealed their thoughts from the common people. Professor McCurdy, discussing this subject, says: "A closer examination of these alleged foreign vocables shows that in many cases they are common Semitic words, slightly altered, and in the majority of the remaining instances they are made up of the same idiom more or less disguised according to methods for the most part easily ascertainable." He further says that the so-called Sumerian cuneiform script had no phonetic value but was simply hieroglyphic or ideographic, and consequently, that nothing could be proved from the script itself, for a script purely pictorial or ideographic would be as easily deciphered by a Semite as by a Sumerian or vice versa. Even those who fully recognize the existence of the Sumerian language freely admit that the Sumerian inscriptions are saturated with Semitic words and Semitic constructions. This, however, proves little or nothing, for it is

generally the case that when two nations speaking different languages have lived for any length of time side by side or even in the same community it is the easiest thing in the world to borrow words and expressions from the language of each other.

The fact that a large number of bilingual or at least interlinear texts have been found goes far to prove the existence of a language not intelligible to those for whom these tablets were written. Halévy replies to the objection by saying, that both texts were Babylonian, but the one was the vulgar script and language and the other a mere cabalistic method of writing, invented by the Babylonian priests, for esoteric purposes.

Those who have compared the Sumerian and Semitic languages call attention to several differences. Nowhere does this difference appear more clearly than in the matter of prefixes and suffixes. A Hebrew, for example, would say "to-house-his"; a Sumerian, on the other hand, reversed the order of the compound and wrote "house-his-to," that is, where one language used prepositions the other employed postpositions. There is also a marked difference in the numeral system of the two languages. The Sumerian counts up to five, then begins again and says five-one, five-two, etc., up to ten.

If we make a comparative study of ancient Babylonian sculpture, we cannot fail to notice the marked contrast between what we know to be Semitic and that found in lower strata. The Sumerian is lank and slender while the Semite is heavy set and muscular. The former shaved both the face and the head while the Semitic people made but little use of the razor, but wore full, flowing beard and long hair.

Another very conclusive argument in favor of a Sumerian race, or at any rate a foreign people as predecessors of the Semites in Babylonia is the fact that many of the Semitic Babylonian gods have non-Semitic names. This goes far to prove that the religion of the Semites was at least, in part, inherited or rather adapted, rather than of native development. "As in our own era the wild Turkish hordes yielded to the influences of the cultured Arabs, adopting their civilization, their religion, and their written characters, though retaining their own language, so the Semites adopted the civilization [and script] of the Sumerians."

Finally, the Hebrew Scripture recognizes Nimrod the founder of the most ancient Babylonian cities as of non-Semitic origin. It is true that not a tablet has yet been found which throws any light whatever upon the name, character, or nationality of Nimrod; thus nothing can be concluded concerning him from the monuments.

THE ARTEMISIUM OF EPHESUS

MR. D. C. HOGARTH, well known to archæologists, met with extraordinary success during the past winter in the excavations under his supervision at Ephesus. His attention was especially directed to the ruins of the Artemisium, which must not be confounded with the famous temple of Diana so widely known in later ages, and mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. According to special correspondence in The Evening

Post, this experienced archæologist came across one of the most valuable pockets of antiquarian treasures, which have yet come to light.

It is a pity that all these objects cannot be taken to the British Museum, or some other center of learning, and thus made accessible to the largest number of students possible. Turkish law, however, requires that all objects of antiquarian interest discovered on Turkish soil must be left in Turkey. Thus, of the four thousand objects discovered by Mr. Hogarth at Ephesus, by far the greater part will be deposited in the Imperial Museum at Constantinople, and at best, worthy but few duplicates will find their way to Europe or America. In the future, therefore, advanced students of Oriental antiquities must needs repair to Constantinople and Cairo to finish their education.

As to the age of the objects brought to light in the ruins of the Artemisium, most of them belong to the seventh and eighth centuries before our era. This, however, does not apply to the large number of coins, found here. Some of these, unmarked, unstamped, mere pieces of metal, bear eloquent testimony to their own antiquity. Some of them, too, have very archaic characters, which, so far, have refused to give up their secret. It is possible that in this newly discovered collection, there may be coins older than any other so far brought to light.

Several terra-cotta figures of Artemis were dug up, none, however, representing the goddess as many-breasted, as are found in later figures. It is worthy of remark that Artemis is represented in this last collection with a babe in her arms, involuntarily reminding us of a modern Madonna. It may be purely accidental, nevertheless it seems to be a fact, that the worship of the Virgin Mary was first sanctioned by the council of Ephesus in 431 A. D. It is possible that the pagan worship of Artemis and her babe did in some way contribute to the sanction given by this council to the adoration paid Mary, the mother of our Lord? The goddess is also represented as accompanied by the sacred hawk, the lion, and the bee. The large number of objects in all sorts of material, show all stages of workmanship from the rudest to the most exquisite. Many of the objects are vessels, bowls, knives, etc., such as would be used in the temple service. There is also quite a collection of astragali (dice) used, no doubt, in ascertaining the will of the goddess. Personal ornaments were found galore. No less than one thousand of these are of the precious metals, while many more are of bronze, lead, and stone. There are, too, a large number of "repoussé gold plates," which were probably used, much as we in our day use embroidery or gold lace to trim garments. These ornaments were left as presents for the goddess and her female attendants. There are, too, a large number of ex-voto offerings which reminded us of many a modern Catholic shrine, such as the Lourdes, or Saint Anne. The great quantity of rude representations of hands, ears, eyes, and other parts of the body bear eloquent testimony to the faith the poorer classes had in the healing power of Artemis.

The publication of a volume by Mr. Hogarth for the British Museum in the near future fully describing this last excavation at Ephesus will be awaited anxiously by students of archæology.

FOREIGN OUTLOOK

SOME LEADERS OF THOUGHT

Adolf Harnack. There would be little need of bringing him to the attention of readers of the REVIEW were it not that he has recently appeared in a somewhat new role. During the early part of 1906 he issued a book entitled Lukas der Arzt der Verfasser des dritten Evangeliums und der Apostelgeschichte (Luke the Physician the Author of the Third Gospel and of the Acts of the Apostles). The work is done as we would expect Harnack to do it, in a comprehensive, detailed, and thorough manner. It is impossible to give here more than a general outline of his argument. After a general investigation as to the personality of Luke and the relation of the Gospel to the Acts, he examines minutely the so-called "We" portions of the Acts to show that the contents of those portions are not out of harmony with the spirit running through the third Gospel, and that the vocabulary, the style, and the syntax, are like those of the Gospel. In the third chapter he considers the question whether, as is ordinarily supposed, the third Gospel and the Acts could not have been written by Luke. It is needless to say that he concludes that they could have been and that they were written by Luke, the beloved physician and companion of Paul the Apostle. Speaking of the Acts of the Apostles he says that all the mistakes that have ever been made in New Testament criticism have been made in connection with this one book of the Acts of the Apostles. In this chapter Harnack takes up about all the objections that have been made to the Lukan authorship of the Acts and shows that they are of very little force. In the fourth chapter he draws the consequences of the conclusion that Luke wrote the Gospel and Acts. In this connection he discusses the probability that Luke gained much of his information relative to the events in the life of Christ from the daughters of Philip, who, it will be remembered, are called prophetesses. Here it is that he calls attention to the large feminine element in the third Gospel. Of these features he mentions the prominence of Elizabeth, Anna the prophetess, the widow of Nain, the woman who was a sinner, the statements of chapter 8, 1ff., Mary and Martha, the woman who called the mother of Jesus blessed, the woman who had been eighteen years sick, the widow and the unjust judge, the widow's mite, the Galilean woman at the cross, the women who bewailed and lamented as they followed him to Calvary, the women as the first messengers of the resurrection of Christ, and the like. He thinks this is one of the indications that the family of Philip gave him much of his information. It is interesting to note also that he regards the information contained in Mark and Luke as older than is generally supposed. This, he thinks, is some advantage, though neither this, nor the fact that Gospel and Acts were written by Luke, makes unbelievable statements believable; and he distinctly says that Luke might as easily have been

in error as anyone else. In fact, he repudiates the reputation of being conservative by saying that while in the criticism of the sources of our information we are tending toward orthodox positions, thereby gaining some things, he believes that in reference to the material itself we are farther away from orthodoxy than ever. In fact, he regards it as in some respects a disadvantage to discover that the Gospels were written earlier than many critics have hitherto supposed. It would be a serious mistake, therefore, for the traditionalist to lean upon Harnack for support. One of the most interesting and suggestive features of Harnack's deliverance in this book is his comparison of the third and fourth Gospels, showing that they have much in common. Indeed, the more one studies the views of Harnack the more one is convinced that but for his critical predictions we would admit that since the Gospels are so much alike, and since the Gospels are so much like the writings of Paul, these writings must all be essentially true.

Daniel Völter. Perhaps there is no better way by which to discover the folly of one kind and the sanity of another kind of criticism than to take the case of a man like Völter, of which like there are all too many, and examine into his methods. In a recent book on Paulus und seine Briefe. Kritische Untersuchungen zu einer neuen Grundlegung der paulinischen Briefliteratur und ihrer Theologie (Paul and his Epistles. Critical researches designed to provide a new Foundation for the Literature and Theology of the Pauline Epistles, Strassburg, that is, J. H. E. Heitz, 1905), he has exhibited his methods to perfection. His avowed purpose is to show us the true Paul and the real letters of Paul, and thus to do a real service to theology. The presupposition is that we have a distorted conception of Paul and his theology as well as of his literary products. In order to get at the genuine writings of Paul, Völter examines critically every section to see whether the verses as they succeed each other are suited together in their inner connection. For example, in 1 Cor. 11. 10-16, verses 11 and 12 can be dropped out without injury to the sense. In 1 Cor. 4. 16, 17, verse 16 is out of harmony with the entire connection, etc. Of this principle he makes much use, with the result that a good part of each book or letter is eliminated. That this principle is sometimes valuable in detecting interpolations is unquestionably true. But the danger in it is that it is peculiarly subject to abuse. If one wishes to rid himself of an inconvenient passage, and if the passage in question can be made to appear inharmonious with the connection, or unnecessary to the connection, it may be dropped out without further ado. This may result in losing to us an idea of an author who was more anxious to give us the idea than to place its expression in some suitable and necessary connection. Besides, while one may regard the doubtful passage as unsuitable another may feel it to be necessary to the complete argument. The full use of the principle may be properly called subjective criticism from the seed. Very much the same principle is it when Völter professes to find in the letters of Paul as we have them ideas which, if