“I notice on page 46 f. a reference to the foundation of Jericho by Hiel. It appears to me that the idea suggested by archeology is only defensible on the principles generally associated with ‘historical criticism.’ If this idea is in any way historically connected with the act of Hiel related in 1 Kings 16 : 34 (wanting in LXX), and pointed to, whether in reality or in the honest, though faulty, imagination of the writer, in Joshua 6 : 26, we must suppose that the act of Hiel was misunderstood by the critics of these two passages. For the deaths of Abiram and Segub are referred to as divine _judgments_ upon Hiel for his violation of the _ḥerem_, or ban, laid upon the site of Jericho, whereas, according to the archeological theory, Hiel offered his children as foundation sacrifices, believing that he could thus bring a blessing on the city of Jericho. No plain reader will understand the connection of the archeological idea and the two passages of Old Testament–as it appears to me. “The connection has been surmised by others before you,–probably you can tell me who first struck out the idea. Is it in Tylor, or where? I cannot remember. Winckler (_Geschichte Israel_, Part I, 1895) expresses his adhesion to it. Kuenen (Onderzoek, I [1886], p. 233) holds that there was a misunderstanding of the traditional facts on the part of the author of the prediction in Joshua 6 : 26 in its present form, and of the author of the notice in 1 Kings 16 : 34; he thinks that Hiel sacrificed his two sons, but does not appear to recall the archeological facts. I think he ought to have recalled them. But he is right in the main, as it seems to me. I have no prejudice against archeological illustrations of customs or of phraseology. On the contrary, I delight in them. I have for many years been on the archeological side, as well as on the critical.... “Robertson Smith took the right course, at once critical and archeological. Only he could not do everything, and he purposed to limit himself, to a great extent, to those branches of archeology which he knew at first hand, or in which he could trust the experts. He would not trust the English (biblical) archeologists, because they were not critical. “Are you right about (God’s) ‘strong hand,’ etc., page 83? And what connection has _teraphim_ with _threshold_ (p. 109)? Bonomi is no critic. You are very convincing about the passover blood. “I will write again if any special notes suggest themselves. A number of references in the Old Testament and the New Testament must be open to divers interpretations; _but I habitually act upon your own principles_. Phrases which seem to us simple, are often full of references which archeology alone can explain. _Macte esto._” ADDITIONAL FROM PROFESSOR DR. FRITZ HOMMEL.