14. The snake hisses (?), the evil one who spits [poison]. 15. Who is the king of Elam who the great building of Esagil de[stroyed], 16. which the Babylonians made, and their work was ..........? 17. This is what thou hast written, saying: “I am a king, the son of a king” .... 18. Who is the son of a daughter of a king, who on the royal throne will sit? ... 19. He is Dursil-ilâni, son of Arad-Malkua, who the throne .......... 20. on the royal throne he sat and before his warriors [he marched]. 21. Now let the king march who from ancient days ......... 22. has been proclaimed lord of Babylon; the work of ........ shall not endure. 23. In the month Siman and the month Tammuz in Babylon there was done .......... 24. the work of the son of the magician. The bull (_i. e._, warrior) who devastates the land .......... 25. The elders in their faithful counsel .......... 26. [gave] the son of the magician the place instead of his father 27. ................. 1 maid .................... Two other similar fragmentary texts belonging to the series are published as noted above, but it is unnecessary to quote them here. The two fragments which we have translated contain the most important references, and are sufficient to enable the reader to make up his mind as to the bearing of these texts upon the fourteenth of Genesis. Pinches and Sayce read the name of the Elamite king, Kukukumal, Kudurlakhmal, and identify it with Chedorlaomer. Pinches so reads it, hesitatingly; Sayce, confidently. There is no reason for so reading it, except the desire to discover Chedorlaomer. The first three syllables are represented in the cuneiform by the same sign--a sign the most frequent value of which is _ku_. It does sometimes have the value _dur_, but never _lakh_. King reads it Kukukumal, and there is really no reason for reading it otherwise. Another name which occurs twice is written in the two places with a slight difference of spelling. It is according to the most natural reading of the signs, Arad-Malkua, or Arad-Malaku. Sayce and Pinches read Eri-eaku and identified him with “Arioch, king of Elassar,” (Gen. 14:1). While this is a possible reading, it is only secured by giving to the signs their Sumerian, instead of their Semitic values, and, as the documents are in Semitic, this is probably wrong. The name is to be read Arad-Malkua. Another name, Tudkhula, which occurs in the first document, has been identified by the same scholars with “Tidal, king of the nations” (Gen. 14:1), but in this text there is no evidence that Tudkhula was a king at all, and the identification is purely fanciful. It should be noted also that Arad-Malkua, the supposed Eri-eaku, does not himself take any part in the wars here recorded; it is his son, Dursil-ilâni, who is represented as a contemporary of Kukukumal, the supposed Chedorlaomer.