During an evening meeting among ourselves Professor Delitzsch had the opportunity, with her Majesty, the Empress, and General Superintendent Dryander, to confer and discuss thoroughly for several hours, during which I remained a passive listener. He, unfortunately, departed from the standpoint of the thoroughgoing historian and Assyriologist and penetrated into the region of theological and religious conclusions and hypotheses, which were hazy and bold. When, however, he came to the New Testament it soon became evident that I could not agree with him in the ideas which he developed concerning the person of the Redeemer, and I was compelled to state my own standpoint, which was diametrically opposed to his. He does not recognize the divinity of Christ and therefore concludes in regard to the Old Testament that it does not refer to Him as the Messiah. Here the Assyriologist and investigating historian ceases and the theologian with all his lights and shades steps in. In this province I can only advise him to go very carefully, step by step, and in any case to ventilate his theories only in theological publications and in the circles of his colleagues and to spare us laymen and especially the Oriental Society, before whose forum all this is out of place. We excavate and read whatever we find and publish it for the advancement of knowledge and history, but not in order to help justify or combat the religious hypotheses of any one of many learned men. In Delitzsch's case the theologian has run away with the historian, and the latter serves merely as a point of departure for the former. I think it unfortunate that Delitzsch should not have stuck to his original programme, which he developed in former years, namely, on the basis of the discoveries of our society, to ascertain through scientifically approved translations of the Scriptures how far these offer an illustration of the chronicle of the people of Israel; that is, enlightenment as to historical events, customs, and uses, traditions, politics, legislation, etc.; in other words, how far the undeniably highly developed Babylonian culture came into contact with the Israelites, could work upon them, yes, even impress its stamp upon them, and thereby accomplish, from a purely human point of view, a sort of rehabilitation for the Babylonians, who were, according to the Old Testament at least, a very crude, shameful, and one-sided people. That was his original intention, at least as I understood it, and a province very fruitful and interesting to us all, the investigation, explanation, and exposition of which must have interested us laymen to the highest degree and would have demanded our deepest gratitude. But he should have stuck to this. Unfortunately, however, in his zeal he has overshot the mark. As was to be expected, the excavations brought to light communications which bear in a religious way upon the Old Testament. He should have collated this material and pointed out and