a © 
108 MAN. 
ing line of evolution (“‘aufsteigende Linie der Entwicke- 
lung”), but as “a return of the profound wisdom of old 
age to the feeling of primitive simplicity.” 
Of the Phoenicians the greatest student of their his- 
tory and religion, F. K. Movers, says: “Nature worship 
gradually obscured the purer God-idea of a more ancient 
stage of belief, but has never entirely obliterated it.” He 
refers to an evident “adulteration of a purer and more 
ancient God-idea.” 
Regarding the Zoroastrians of ancient Persia, M. 
Haug, the famous Zend scholar, asserts that ‘“Mono- 
theism was the leading idea of Zoroaster’s theology ;” 
he called God Ahura-mazda, i. e., “the Living Creator.” 
Zoroaster did not teach a theological Dualism. He ar- 
rived “at the idea of the unity and indivisibility of the 
Supreme Being,’ and only as “in course of time this doc- 
trine was changed and corrupted ... the dualism of 
God and the devil arose.” “Monotheism was superseded 
by Dualism.” 
Both Dr. F. Hommel and Friedrich Delitzsch agree 
on the question of an early Arabian and Sumerian mono- 
theism. Dr. Hommel demonstrates from the personal 
surnames contained in the inscriptions the existence of 
a “‘very exalted monotheism” in the most ancient times 
of the Arabian nation, about 2500 B. C., and among the 
Semitic tribes of northern Babylonia. This “monotheis- 
tic religion’ degenerated under the influence of Babylon- 
ian polytheism. ‘The same opinion was held years ago by 
Julius Oppert, the Assyriologist, who was led to a belief in 
‘a universal primitive monotheism as the basis of all re- 
ligions.” 
Expressions similar to the above might be adduced 
from Rawlinson, Legge (“Religions of China’), Doelling- 
er, Victor v. Strauss-Torney (the Egyptologist), Jacob 
