[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.