J.D.B. News Letter

(By our Philadelphia, correspondent)

The age of the patriarchs, the kingdom of Sheba and the problem of immigration were some of the subjects under consideration at the annual convention of the American Philosophical Society, which held its sessions here.

The suggestion that the ages ascribed to many of the Biblical patriarchs indicated the ages of their clans and not of themselves as individuals was advanced by Robert T. Field. Acting upon this hypothesis, Mr. Field explained this new theory of the reading of the Old Testament era, estimating the antediluvian period from Adam to Noah at eight to ten thousand years, instead of the now generally accepted one thousand, six hundred and fifty-six years, and the postdiluvian period at four thousand to six thousand years, instead of four hundred years.

“The first eleven chapters of Genesis contain the history of clans and nations bearing the same name,” Mr. Field said. “Instead of one Adam, Adam was a tribe. Jacob was named Israel, used to designate him personally and his descendants. The names from Adam to Terah, with their unusually long ages are perfectly understandable as clans and tribes. The clan of Adam lived nine hundred and thirty years, that of Seth nine hundred and twelve years and they, instead of being fathers and sons at the ages of 105 and 130, died at those ages.”

Professor James A. Montgomery of the University of Pennsylvania discussed an ancient stone document found in Southern Arabia which indicated. he said, that the kingdom of Sheba was the first limited constitutional monarchy and that it foreshadowed the British consittution in a remarkable manner. The ancient parliamentary document of the kingdom of Sheba is undated and probably belonged to a period considerably later than that of the queen who visited Solomon. That visit occurred soon after one thousand before the Christian era. Professor Montgomery expressed the belief that this ancient legislative enactment took place many centuries later and not much before the Christian era.

Dr. Ernest Minor Patterson, professor of economics at the University of Pennsylvania, discussed the population growth and the migration of peoples, stating that they furnish an issue which may soon become acute in international policies. The problem presented is not easy of solution, said Professor Patterson. “Thus far Americans have taken refuge in the easy but superficial contention that immigration is a purely domestic question and that we may decide it as we see fit. But is it?” The same argument has been pressed in support of our tariff policy, yet slowly and surely people of all parts of the world are coming to realize that restrictions on the importation and exportation of commodities are facts of international significance. What is done by one country is a matter of concern to all he said.

“Our immigration policy will be challenged vigorously. The issues raised are becoming more insistent and the answer is not easy. Mere assertion of so-called rights will be inadequate,” he declared.