xviii:29). But the last two passages speak of quite a different place. There were two places called Dan; Dan-Jaan (2 Sam. xxiv :6), and Dan Laisli, or Leshem.
In Genesis, they further add, frequently oc curs the name Bethel (xii :8; xxviii :19; xxxv: 15) ; while even in the time of Joshua, the place was as yet called Luz (Josh. xviii:13). But the name Bethel was not first given to the place by the Israelites in the time of Joshua, there being no occasion for it, since Bethel was the old patri archal name, which the Israelites restored in the place of Luz, a name given by the Canaanites.
Another passage in Genesis (xxxvi :31), 'Be fore there reigned any king over the children of Israel,' is likewise supposed to have been writ ten at a period when the Jews had already a king over them. But the broachers of these ob jections forget that this passage refers to those promises contained in the Pentateuch in general, and in Genesis in particular (comp. Gen. xxxv: 11), that there should hereafter be kings among the Israelites as an independent nation. In com paring Israel with Edom (Gen. xxxvi), the sacred writer cannot refrain from observing that Edom, though left without Divine promises of possessing kings, nevertheless possessed them, and obtained the glory of an independent kingdom, long before Israel could think of such an independence ; and a little attention to the sense of the passage will show how admirably the observation suits a writer in the Mosaical period.
The passage (Gen. xv :r8) where the land of Israel is described as extending from the river of Egypt (the Nile) to the great river (Euphrates), it is alleged, could only have been penned during the splendid period of the Jews, the times of Da vid and Solomon. Literally taken, however, the remark. is inapplicable to any period, since the kingdom of the Jews at no period of their history extended so far. That promise must, therefore, be taken in a rhetorical sense, describing the cen tral point of the proper country as situated be tween the two rivers.
2. Historical Character. In. its historical character Genesis is a book consisting of two con trasting parts.
(1) The Creation. The first part introduces us int'o the greatest problems of the human mind, such as the Creation and the fall of man; and the second, into the quiet solitude of a small defined circle of families. In the former, the most sub
lime and wonderful events are described with childlike simplicity; while, in the latter, on the contrary, the most simple and common occur rences are interwoven with the sublimest thoughts and reflections, rendering the small family circle a whole world in history, and the principal actors in it prototypes for a whole nation, and for all times. The contents in general are strictly re ligious. Not the least trace of mythology ap pears in it. It is true that the narrations are fraught with wonders. But primeval wonders, the marvelous deeds of God, are the very subject of Genesis. None of these wonders, however, bear a fantastical impress, and there is no use less prodigality of them. They are all penetrated and connected by one common leading idea, and are all related to the counsel of God for the sal vation of man. This principle sheds its lustrous beams through the whole of Genesis; therefore the wonders therein related are as little to be ascribed to the invention and imagination of man as the whole plan of God for human salvation. The foundation of the Divine theocratical insti tution throws a strong light upon the early patri archal times.; the reality of the one proves the reality of the other, as described in Genesis.
(2) Biblical Cosmogony. The separate counts in Genesis also manifest great internal evi dence of truth if we closely examine them. They bear on their front the most beautiful impress of truth. The cosmogony in Genesis stands equaled among all others known in the ancient world. (See COSMOGONY.) No mythology, no ancient philosophy, has ever come up to the idea of a creation out of nothing. All the ancient sys tems end in Pantheism, Materialism, emanation theory, etc. But the Biblical cosmogony occupies a place of its own, and therefore must not be ranked among, or confounded with, any of the ancient systems of mythology or philosophy. The mythological and philosophical cosmogonies may have been derived from the Biblical, as being later depravations and misrepresentations of Biblical truth ; but the contents of Genesis cannot, vice versti, have been derived from mythology or phil osophy. (See Babylonian Creation Story, BABY