Mythology among the Hebrews and Its Historical Development

841. The circumstance that this was ‘of Jahveh’ (Judges XIV. 4) is a fiction interpolated into the legend by the systematising author.

842. It will be seen from the above, that I am far from subscribing to the judgment on the heathen religions which has in recent times been widely diffused among philosophers and philologians. I agree essentially with the judgment of the natural mind, which always sees delusion and superstition in heathendom. But it does not follow from this that the heathens were absolutely immoral: they invested with their own morality gods who were intrinsically representations of nature only.

843. See Preller, Griech. Mythol. II. 97; Gerhard, Griech. Mythol. § 711.

844. For this assertion I must for the present refer to what I have said in an article, Zur Charakteristik der semitischen Völker, in the Zeitschr. für Völkerpsychologie etc. Vol. I. p. 328 et seqq. In Liebner and others’ Jahrbücher für deutsche Theologie, V. p. 669 et seqq., there is a long article by Diestel, Der Monotheismus des ältesten Heidenthums, vorzüglich bei den Semiten. He also declares himself averse to the assumption of a primitive Monotheism, because it is destitute of all historical proof. He brings many points judiciously into the light, especially the absence of an accurate conception of Monotheism (p. 684). But when he objects to me, that in the above-quoted article (p. 330) I am too hard on the expression Instinct used by Renan, inasmuch as it is to be understood as implying only an individual disposition of the religious mind, not a momentum of half-animal physical life. I must observe in reply, that I can scarcely imagine how else instinct can be understood but as a ‘half-animal momentum’; and even reason, taken as an instinct, is eo ipso degraded to a momentum of half-animal physical life. And if Diestel here means by instinct a ‘disposition of the mind,’ I can see in such dispositions scarcely anything more than momenta of half-animal physical life. Moreover, I cannot admit any such ‘dispositions of the religious mind,’ which have the special object of their belief determined beforehand.

A disposition to reasonableness in general, or to religiousness in general, does dwell in the human mind; but not a disposition so defined as to its object that a limited idea, such as Monotheism, could be a priori inherent in it.

845. By J. Olshausen in Hirzel’s Hiob, p. 60 note.—But Ewald says expressly (Ijob, 1854, p. 126) that Rahab is everywhere a mythological name for a sea-monster, even where it stands for Egypt.—Tr.

846. See pp. 73, 169.

847. See Zeitsch. d. D. M. G., 1849, III. p. 200 et seq.

848. Hebrew livyâthân, nâchâs; Sanskrit Vṛtra, Ahi.

849. The literal and only possible translation of the first three words of the verse, geʿar chayyath ḳaneh, rendered correctly in the Septuagint and Vulgate; for which the English A.V. unaccountably substitutes ‘Rebuke the company of spearmen,’ while the Prayer-book version goes even further astray.—Tr.

850. Baʿal kûn, see Movers, I. 292.

851. Job IX. 8; bâmothê yâm.—Tr.

852. Is. XIV. 14; bâmothê ʿâbh.—Tr.

853. It will be inferred from the above reasoning, that I should be inclined to assign an early age to the writer of the Book of Job. But I can find no reason for making him older than Amos; indeed, he may have lived into the lifetime of Isaiah. I must further remark that Schlottmann (Das Buch Hiob verdeutscht und erläutert, pp. 69–105, especially 101 et seqq.) has expressed ideas similar to those propounded by me, though starting from assumptions utterly different in principle. To the passages of Job which he places side by side with corresponding ones of Amos (p. 109), the following may be added: Amos V. 8 and IX. 6, ‘who calleth to the water of the (Cloud-) Sea,’ and Job XXXVIII. 34, ‘wilt thou lift up thy voice to the Cloud?’

854. Prometheus, p. 391.

855. Kuhn, Herabkunft des Feuers etc., p. 30.

856. P. 392.

857. Preller, ib. I. 438; Kuhn, ib. p. 24, 243.

858. See p. 399.

859. See p. 425.

860. Schwartz, Ursprung der Mythologie, p. 251.

861. In English Tues-day, Wednes-day, Thurs-day, Fri-day, Satur-day, from Anglo-Saxon names of gods, Tiu or Teow, Wôden, Thunor, Frige, Sætern.—Tr.

862. E.g. the Lady-bird, in German Marienkäfer; its Danish name, Marihöne, was, according to Grimm, anciently Freyjuhöna ‘Freyja’s hen.’ So Venus’ Looking-glass (Speculum Veneris) is also called Lady’s Glass; Pecten Veneris is Lady’s Comb. There are very numerous plants named after Our Lady, which were probably originally dedicated to Freyja or Venus, as Lady’s Mantle; Lady’s Thistle or Lady’s Milk (Carduus Marianus: ‘distinguished at once by the white veins on its leaves.... A drop of the Virgin Mary’s milk was conceived to have produced these veins, as that of Juno was fabled to be the origin of the Milky Way.’ Hooker and Arnott, British Flora, p. 231); Lady’s Smock (Cardamine); Lady’s Bower or Virgin’s Bower (Clematis); Lady’s Fingers (Anthyllis); Lady’s Tresses (Spiranthes or Neottia); Lady’s Slipper (Cypripedium).—Tr.

863. As this German example will not be familiar to all English readers, it is necessary to give a few words of explanation. The great Deluge (Gen. VI.-VIII.) is called in modern German Sünd-fluth, which seems to be Sin-flood = Flood on account of sin. But in Old High German it is written Sin-vluot and Sint-vluot, which cannot be identical with the assumed meaning of the modern word, since sin (peccatum) is in Old High German sunta. Moreover, sin is a prefix well known to most of the Teutonic languages, denoting (1) always, (2) great. In the former sense we have it in the Old English singrene ‘evergreen;’ in the latter in the Anglo-Saxon sinhere ‘great army.’ Hence it is assumed that the word in German altered its pronunciation when the prefix sin became obsolete, being then supposed to be intended for Sünd-fluth, as is shown in the text. See Grimm, Deut. Gram. II. 554, Graff, Althochd. Sprachschatz, VI. 25, Ettmüller, Lex. Anglosax. p. 638, Vigfusson, Icelandic English Dict. s. v. Sí. Prof. Steinthal appears now (in a letter to the translator) to doubt whether this history of the word is tenable; but the assumption that it is so may at least be allowed, in order to retain this excellent example of the psychological progress.—Tr.

864. See supra, p. 426.

865. Ps. XIX. 6 [5].

866. Judges XVI. 28: ‘Give me strength only this once, O God, and I will avenge myself with the vengeance of one of my two eyes on the Philistines.’ This is the only possible meaning of the very simple Hebrew words nekam achath mishshethê ʿênay, which were misunderstood by the LXX and Vulg.; and the German and English versions have merely followed the latter.—Tr.

867. Jer. X. 12, V. 24; Gen. VIII. 22.