606.  Josephus, Contra Apionem, I. 14.

607.  See Duncker, Geschichte des Alterthums, 1874, I. 253.

608.  In Ezek. XXVII. 17, the wares, the export of which made the Hebrews dependent on the Phenicians, are enumerated in detail.

609.  Die Vorurtheile über das alte und neue Morgenland, in Abhandl. der königl. Gesellsch. der Wissensch., Gottingen 1872, XVII. 98.

610.  So e.g. Jas. Fergusson, Rude Stone Monuments, p. 38; Mommsen, History of Rome, 1868, II. 18 et seq.

611.  Lenormant, Essai sur la propagation de l’Alphabet phénicien dans l’ancien monde, ed. 2, Paris 1875, I. p. 25.

612.  W.D. Whitney, Language and the Study of Language, London 1867, p. 169; cf. F. von Hellwald, Culturgeschichte, p. 154.

613.  Hellwald, ibid., p. 482.

614.  Movers, Die Phönizier, II. 2. 439 et seq.

615.  Histoire générale des langues sémitiques, p. 200.

616.  See my Studien über Tanchûm Jeruschalmi, Leipzig 1870, p. 12.

617.  Die Semiten in ihrem Verhâltniss zu Chamiten und Japheiten, Basel 1872, p. 134.

618.  This question will be found very satisfactorily discussed in Stade’s article ‘Erneute Prüfung des zwischen dem Phönicischen und Hebräischen bestehenden Verwandtschaftsverhältnisses,’ in the Morgenländische Forschungen, Leipzig 1875, pp. 169–232.

619.  See Merx, Archiv. f. wissensch. Erforsch. d. A. T. pt. 1. 1867, p. 108.

620.  In late Aramaised Hebrew we find the feminine kehantâ (= kôheneth) for a Priest’s Wife, equivalent to êsheth kôhên; see Levy, Chald. Wörterb. I. 356 a. It comes thence to be used in a general signification, of an honest, irreproachable woman, in opposition to pundâḳîth, properly an innkeeper, in Mishnâ Yebhâmôth, XVI. 7.

621.  See Ernst Meier’s essay on the former in Zeitsch. d. D. M. G., 1865, XIX., and Nathan Davis, Carthage and her remains, London 1861.

622.  Die geschichtlichen Bücher des A. T., Leipzig 1866.

623.  Bibelkritisches, in the Zeitsch. d. D. M. G., 1873, XXVII. 682–89, especially the theses 22–26. Zunz appears to have laboured independently of Graf, but arrives at almost the same results.

624.  Bargés, who has earned great credit for his elucidation of the Marseilles table in several writings, disputes the authenticity of the inscription discovered by Davis (Examen d’une nouvelle inscription phénicienne découverte récemment dans les ruines de Carthage et analogue à celle de Marseille. Paris 1868).

625.  History of Israel, II. 360.

626.  Geschichte der Juden, Leipzig 1874, I. 407 et seq.

627.  See Stade’s exhaustive exposition in the Morgenländische Forschungen, p. 197. But I cannot share the opinion of my respected friend, that the Hebrews could borrow nothing from the Phenicians because the two nations passed through a completely distinct religious and political development.

628.  Shefaṭ-ʿAdad in Nabatean, quoted by Ernst Meier in Zeitsch. d. D. M. G. 1873, XVII. 609, is also problematical.

629.  Duncker, Geschichte des Alterthums, I. 371.

630.  The data belonging to this subject are lucidly brought together in Kuenen’s Religion of Israel, I. 182.

631.  Semiten, Chamiten und Japhetiten, p. 160 et seq.

632.  Equally exaggerated on the other side, however, is Tiele’s view (Vergelijk. Geschied., p. 182), treating the story of Samson as borrowed from the Canaanites. See also Duncker, l.c. II. 65.

633.  This fact, moreover, refutes Buckle’s thesis (assuming the very opposite course of development), which makes history to be the earlier, and to be subsequently degraded to ‘a mythology full of marvels.’ This thesis has been estimated at its true value by Hermann Cohen in an article entitled Die dichterische Phantasie und der Mechanismus des Bewusstseins, in the Zeitsch. für Völkerpsychologie etc., 1869, VI. 186–193.

634.  Mommsen, l.c. book III. chap 1.

635.  Holtzmann, Deutsche Mythologie, p. 28.

636.  Paul Gyulai, Vörösmarty élete [Life of Vörösmarty], Pest 1866, p. 49 et seq.

637.  See Excursus N.

638.  Godgeleerde Bijdragen, 1866, p. 983 et seq. With him Kuenen agrees, The Religion of Israel, I. 311 et seq.

639.  Like the Hungarian national hero Nicolas Toldi, who overcomes the Czech (Bohemian) hero in single combat.

640.  Compare Genesis rabbâ, § 48.

641.  See Shâhnâmeh (ed. Mohl), p. 124. vv. 121–29 and pp. 139–40, etc.

642.  Hartung, in the first part of his Religion und Mythologie der Griechen, contradicts himself again and again on this subject. At first he makes monotheism precede all development of religion (p. 3), then he sees nothing religious at all in monotheism (p. 28), and next the growth of religion proceeds from polytheism to monotheism, not the reverse way (p. 32).

643.  Waitz, Anthropologie der Naturvölker, I. 363 note.

644.  La Magie chez les Chaldéens, p. 72.

645.  Annales de la Philosophie chrétienne, an 1858, p. 260.

646.  Essays, Moral, Political and Literary, ed. Green and Grose, vol. II. p. 311; compare Buckle’s History of Civilisation in England, in 3 vols. vol. I. p. 251; Pfleiderer, Die Religion und ihre Geschichte, II. 17. Before Hume the view that Polytheism was a degradation of a previous Monotheism was generally admitted. But Hume’s exposition did not put an end to this radically false idea. Creuzer’s great work, Symbolik und Mythologie der alten Völker, besonders der Griechen, is based on this false assumption, and Schelling’s Philosophy of Religion starts from the same premiss. And many able English scholars still speak again and again of the degradation of the primeval Monotheism into Polytheism. Not only one-sided theologians start from this axiom; Gladstone’s mythological system, in his Studies on Homer and the Homeric Age, and Juventus Mundi is founded upon it, all progress in history, philology and mythology notwithstanding.

647.  In Virchow and Holtzendorff’s Sammlung gemeinverständlicher wissenschaftlicher Vorträge, 1870, Heft 97, p. 20.

648.  Polit. I. 1. 7: καὶ τοὺς θεοὺς δὲ διὰ τοῦτο πάντες φασὶ βασιλεύεσθαι, ὅτι καὶ αὐτοι, οἱ μὲν ἔτι καὶ νῦν, οἱ δὲ τὸ ἀρχαῖον ἐβασιλεύοντο· ὥσπερ δὲ καὶ τὰ εἴδη ἑαυτοῖς ἀφομοιοῦσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι, οὕτω καὶ τοὺς βίους τῶν θεῶν. Waitz, Anthropologie der Naturvölker, I. 466, says: ‘Considering the multitude of superhuman beings, it is certainly very natural to follow the analogy of human relations, which is often carried out with great consistency, and to assume gradations of power among them, one being regarded as the first and highest of all. But this idea may easily be rendered unfruitful through the very analogy which suggested it, because in human society the power and repute of individuals are frequently changing.’ But even this fact is not unfruitful with regard to religion; for on this analogy a world of gods with a head liable to change may be imagined.

649.  Schelling’s Sämmtliche Werke (Cotta’s edition, 1856), II. Abth. I, 52 (Einleitung in die Philosophie der Mythologie).

650.  Theogon. vv. 882–85.

651.  Palgrave, Central and Eastern Arabia, I. 33.

652.  Von Holtzendorff in the Zeitsch. für Völkerpsychologie etc., 1868, V. 378.

653.  Waitz, l.c. II. 126 et seq. and especially pp. 167, 439, on the religion and politics of the Negroes, and Gerland in the sixth volume of the same work (passim) on similar institutions among the Polynesians.

654.  In Tylor, Primitive Culture, II. 306.

655.  Die Religion der Zukunft, Berlin 1874, p. 102.

656.  Histoire générale etc., p. 131.

657.  Thus this much-discussed verse contains no prophecy, but a recollection of the phases of the growth of religion in past times.

658.  Voyages d’Ibn Batoutah, I. 115 et seq. The jealousy with which the Mohammedans for a long time forbad Christians and Jews to visit the graves of the Patriarchs only began at the year 664 A.H. ‘L’an 664 Bibars défendit aux chrétiens et aux juifs d’entrer dans le temple de Hébron; avant cette époque ils y allaient librement, moyennant une rétribution’ (Quatremère, Mémoire géogr. et hist. sur l’Égypte, Paris 1841, II. 224).

659.  Ibn Ḳuteybâ, Handbuch der Geschichte, ed. Wüstenfeld, p. 10.

660.  Burton and Drake, Unexplored Syria, London 1872, I. 33.

661.  Yâḳût, Muʿjam, IV. 291. 11 et seq.

662.  Ibid., p. 438. 16.

663.  Burton and Drake, l.c. p. 35.

664.  Rosen in Zeitsch. d. D. M. G., XI. 59.

665.  Yâḳût, III. 720. 3.

666.  Zunz, Geogr. Literatur der Juden, no. 109, Gesammelte Schriften, I. 191.

667.  Alfred von Kremer, Mittelsyrien und Damaskus, Vienna 1853, p. 118.

668.  al-Damîrî, Ḥayât al-ḥaywân, I. 59: ‘ʿAlî is the earliest Imâm whose burial-place is not known. It is said that before his death he ordered it to be kept secret, knowing that the sons of Umayya would attain to power, and that his grave would not then be safe from desecration. Nevertheless, his grave is shown at various places.’

669.  Or ‘And they buried him’ (LXX. ἔθαψαν), as it is understood by many excellent scholars.—Tr.

670.  Siphrê debhê Rabh, ed. M. Friedmann, Vienna 1864, § 357 and note 42 of the editor.

671.  Yâḳût, II. 589. 21.

672.  Sepp, Jerusalem und das Heilige Land, II. 245.

673.  Ṭûr Hârûn, Yâḳût, III. 559; Ḳazwînî, I. 168; see Burckhardt in Gesenius, Thesaurus, p. 392.

674.  Zeitsch. d. D. M. G., 1862, XVI. 688.

675.  Burton, Personal Narrative etc., 1st ed. II. 117, or 2nd ed. I. 331.

676.  Zeitsch. d. D. M. G., l.c. p. 656. On duplicates in Mohammedan and Christian traditions about graves, see Sepp’s article on Samaria and Sichem, (Ausland, 1875, pp. 470–72).

677.  A mala fides should not be assumed even in the case of inscriptions like those mentioned by Procopius, De Bello Vandalico, V. 2. 13; see Munk’s Palestina, German translation by Levy, p. 193, note 5. They are everywhere old legendary popular traditions, which in later time become fixed by an inscription. From such inscriptions we must distinguish fictitious sepulchral monuments, in which the intention to delude is manifest, e.g. the inscription on the graves of Eldad and Medad, on which see Zunz, l.c. no. 43, p. 167. On Jewish accounts of the burial-places of the ancients Zunz, l.c. pp. 182 and 210, should be consulted.

678.  Sepp, l.c., II. 269.

679.  Voyages, I. 205, II. 203. A brief list of graves of prophets which are shown at Tiberias and some other places is given in Yâḳût, III. 512.

680.  See Gesenius, Thesaurus, p. 141.

681.  If this means that he belonged to the tribe of Ephraim, it is easy to understand why the author of the Chronicle (1 Chr. IV. 18 et seq.) claims him for the tribe of Levi, when we consider the generally acknowledged Levitical tendency of that late book of history. It would appear to one holding Levitical sentiments impossible that a man who is said to have often offered sacrifices (1 Sam. IX. 13), and to have served in the sanctuary of Shiloh under the High-priest Eli, should have been anything but a Levite.

682.  Consequently the discarded ת th must be regarded as an inflexion, and shows us that the word has no connexion with Crete.

683.  Ewald, Ausführl. Lehrb. d. hebr. Sprache, § 164. c; Grammar transl. Nicholson, § 343 end.

684.  Aug. Knobel, Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, p. 544. On the Northern origin of this book most candid Biblical critics are agreed.

685.  Ursprung der Sagen von Abraham, Isak und Jakob. Kritische Untersuchung von A. Bernstein. Berlin 1871.

686.  As the drawing up of the Canon belongs to an age in which the antagonism between North and South had ceased to exist, the literary products of the North which were still preserved from old times obtained a place in it, though always brought into harmony with the all-pervading theocratic character by occasional interpolated modifications of sentiment.

687.  With respect to the originality and the specifically Hebrew character of the notion of Jahveh, I consider the most correct assertion yet made to be what Ewald declared in reference to the alleged Phenician Divine name Jah; for when we examine the passages and the data on which Movers’ and Bunsen’s opposite view is based, their apocryphal nature strikes us at the first glance. This is especially true (to mention one case only) of the passage of Lydus, De mens. IV. 38. 14: Οἱ Χαλδαῖοι τὸν θεὸν ΙΑΩ λέγουσιν ... τῇ Φοινίκων γλώσσῃ καὶ ΣΑΒΑΩΘ δὲ πολλαχοῦ λέγεται κτλ (See Bunsen, Egypt’s Place in Universal History, vol. IV. p. 193). As to the occurrence of the name Jahveh in the Assyrian theology there is not yet sufficient certainty. Eberhard Schrader, who refers to it, imagines the name to be borrowed from the Hebrew (Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament, p. 4).

688.  To this may be added that the Moabite Stone speaks of the vessels of Jahveh which king Mesha carried off as plunder from the Northern kingdom (line 18). Kuenen goes too far in finding a connexion between the worship of Jahveh in the Northern kingdom and the figures of bulls (Religion of Israel, I. 74 et seq.)

689.  In the article Ueber die nabathäischen Inschriften von Petra, Hauran u.s.w., in the Zeitsch. d. D. M. G., 1860, XIV. 410.

690.  This must not be placed in the same category with cases in which the insertion of [ ] can be explained phonologically (Ewald, Ausführliches Lehrb. der hebr. Spr. § 192. c; Böttcher, I. 286). See the Agadic explanation of this, which I have quoted in the Zeitsch. d. D. M. G., 1872, XXVI. 769.

691.  The changes of name mentioned in 2 Kings XXIII. 34, XXIV. 17, should also be considered here. It is not probable that these changes were ordered by the Kings of Egypt and of Babylon; for in that case the names received in exchange would have been quite different, Egyptian and Babylonian respectively in form (compare Dan. I. 7). The change of Elyâḳîm into Yehôyâḳîm is especially noticeable, for it is a direct alteration of an Elohistic into a Jahveistic name. Such a change is usually the simple consequence of a religious revolution, as is seen in other cases. Thus, e.g. King Amenophis IV., when he directs his fanaticism against the worship of Ammon, and places that of Aten in the foreground, changes his Ammonic name into Shu en Aten, ‘the light of the solar orb.’ See Brugsch, L’histoire d’Égypte (1st ed.), I. 119, and Lenormant, Premières civilisations, I. 211. Of Moḥammed also we are told that he altered those portions of his followers’ names which savoured of idolatry, substituting monotheistic terms; thus one ʿAbd ʿAmr had his name changed to ʿAbd al-Raḥmân (Wüstenfeld, Register zu den genealogischen Tabellen, p. 27). The pious philologian al-Aṣmaʿî always calls the heathen Arabic poet Imru-l-Ḳeys, Imru Allâh, changing the name of the heathen god Ḳeys into the monotheistic Allâh (Guidi on Ibn Hishâmi’s Commentary etc., Leipzig 1874, p. XXI.).

692.  As Pope in the Universal Prayer: ‘Father of all: ... Jehovah, Jove, or Lord!’—Tr.

693.  For instance Strauss, in the Zeitsch. d. D. M. G., 1869, XXIII. 473. But not only Jahveh, but even Elôhîm was brought from China. The glory of publishing this eccentric idea to the world belongs to M. Adolphe Saïsset, who wrote a whole book, entitled Dieu et son homonyme, Paris 1867, to prove very thoroughly that the Elôhîm of Genesis was really—the Emperor of China! The book is 317 octavo pages long.

694.  Vergelijkende Geschiedenis, pp. 555, 561.

695.  To this group belongs, on Arabian ground (besides the well-known ʿarrâf and kâhin), the muḥaddath ‘the well-informed;’ on whom see De Sacy’s Commentary on Ḥarîrî, 2nd ed., p. 686.

696.  Mommsen, History of Rome, edition of 1868, III. 446 et seq.

697.  This is meant only as a general assertion, and is the general impression left by the Prophetical books. There are, in this as in other respects, various grades perceptible between the different Prophets. The prophetical Jahveistic idea is not so powerful and exclusive in all as in the Babylonian Isaiah.

698.  ‘I am I’ (hû being equivalent to the verb to be)='I am who I am.'—Tr.

699.  See Kuenen, Religion of Israel, III. 41.

700.  Bunsen must be named as the writer who lays the most stress on the importance of this anî anî hû, bringing this formula into connexion with the metaphysical definition of the idea of Jahveh (God in History, I. p. 74 et seq.). Lessing’s ‘Nur euer Er heisst Er’ (only your He is called He, Nathan der Weise, I. 4) is with justice adduced by Bunsen.

701.  B. Constant de Rebecque, Du Polythéisme Romain, II. 102, quoted by Buckle, Civilisation, II. 303.

702.  It is best to read with Gesenius miḳḳesem for miḳḳedem.

703.  Hosea XIV. 4 [3] must also be noted, where the alliance with Assyria is condemned in the words ‘Asshur will not save us; we shall not ride on horses.’ See also Zech. IX. 10, X. 5, Micah V. 9 [10].

704.  See Ezek. XXXVII. 15–28.

705.  See on the other side Zunz in the Zeitsch. d. D. M. G., 1873, p. 688, thesis 14 et seq.

706.  These two passages (Mic. VI. 4 and Mal. III. 22 [IV. 4]) appears not to have been noticed by Michel Nicolas in his 'Etudes critiques sur la Bible,' Paris 1862, I. 351, where he says of Moses, ‘Son nom ne se trouve que deux fois dans les écrits des prophètes qui sont parvenus jusqu'à nous—(Esaie, LXIII. 12; Jér. XV. 1).’

707.  I have given particular prominence to this on account of the opposite view taken by Max Müller in his Chips, I. 361 et seq.

708.  His fondness for humanising God by anthropomorphic expressions is the only feature, the reasons for which are not patent.

709.  See Knobel, Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua, pp. 539, 554.

710.  See Knobel, Die Bücher etc., p. 529.

711.  The relative clause is dependent upon Debharîm only.

712.  See Knobel, Die Bücher etc., p. 579.

713.  See Supplement to the Augsburg Allgemeine Zeitung of June 19, 1874.

714.  I will here cite a passage of Ibn Chaldûn, although not decisive on questions like the present: ‘Know that the Persians and Indians know nothing of the Ṭûfân (deluge); some Persians say that it took place only at Babylon.’ (History, vol. II.) Edward Thomas, in the Academy, 1875, p. 401, quotes a passage of al-Bîrûnî, in which it is said that the Indians, Chinese and Persians have no story of a Deluge, but that some say that the Persians know of a partial deluge. Burnouf believed the idea of a Deluge to be originally foreign to Indian mythology, and to have been borrowed, probably from Chaldaic sources (Bhâgavata Purâṇa, III. XXXI., LI.). A. Weber (in the Indische Studien, Heft 2, and on occasion of a critique of Nêve’s writings on the Indian story of the Deluge, in the Zeitsch. d. D. M. G., 1851, V. 526) declares himself in favour of the indigenousness of the Indian story, in opposition to Lassen and Roth, who agree with Burnouf.

715.  The similarities and differences of the respective stories of the Deluge are lucidly placed side by side by George Smith in The Chaldean Account of Genesis, p. 286 et seq.

716.  Tuch, Commentar über die Genesis, 1st ed. 1838, p. 149; 2nd ed. 1871, p. 47.

717.  Academy, 1873, no. 77. col. 292.

718.  See Westminster Review, April 1875, p. 486.

719.  Geschichte des Alterthums, 4th ed. 1874, I. 186.

720.  The Chaldean Account of Genesis, pp. 60–112.

721.  Consult also Dr. Jacob Auerbach’s article Ueber den ersten Vers der Genesis in Geiger’s Zeitsch. für Wissenschaft und Leben, 1863, Bd. II. p. 253, who, I now see, comes very near to these ideas, but does not express them fully or clearly.