[723]. This appears to be Bunsen’s opinion: God in History, I. 101.
[724]. See Max Müller’s essay Genesis and the Zend-Avesta (Chips, I. 143 et seqq.). The Dutch scholar Tiele occupies nearly the same position as Spiegel on this question, which he discusses fully in his book De Godsdienst van Zarathustra, Haarlem 1864, p. 302 et seq.
[725]. Les Ruines, XX. 13. System.
[726]. I must mention a third view on the concurrence of the Hebrew with the Aryan story of the primeval age; it is that which was first declared by Ewald in his History of Israel, I. 224 et seqq., and is adopted by Lassen and Weber among the Germans, and by Burnouf and (with some hesitation) Renan among the French. In this view the coincidences in the respective primitive stories are to be accounted for by common prehistoric traditions which the Aryans and the Semites formed in their original common dwelling-place concerning primeval history. Renan speaks shortly on the subject in his Histoire gén. des Langues sémitiques, pp. 480 et seq.
[727]. Naturgeschichte der Sage, I. 8.
[728]. Die religiösen, politischen und socialen Ideen der Asiatischen Culturvölker, etc., edited by M. Lazarus, Berlin 1872, p. 590.
[729]. Commentar zur Genesis, 1st ed. 1838, p. 200; 2nd ed. 1871, p. 157.
[730]. It should be observed that in the postexilian imitation of this sermon of castigations (now called in the Synagogue tôkhâchâ) in Lev. XXVI. 14–43, the circumstance that the people would be carried off by an enemy ‘whose language they understood not’ is omitted. Other points in the tôkhâchâ of Leviticus indicate that it was imagined by one who had a knowledge of the Captivity; so e.g. the especial accentuation of residence in the land of an enemy, as in vv. 32, 36, 38, 39.
[731]. George Smith, The Chaldean Account of Genesis, pp. 158 et seqq.
[732]. Fiske, Myths and Myth makers, pp. 71, 154. See Tylor, Primitive Culture, I. 357 et seq.