[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.
[722]. This view is expounded by Kuenen in his Religion of Israel, II. 156.