[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.