That first question concerning the unity of the book is closely connected with another question respecting its authenticity, or whether Moses was the author of Genesis. We confine ourselves here to only a few remarks on the authenticity of Gene sis in particular, and refer the reader for further information to the article PENTATEUCH. Some critics have attempted to ascertain the period when Genesis was composed, from a few passages in it whicl they say must be anachronisms, if Moses was really the author of the book (v. ex. gr. Tuch, Commentar fiber Genesis, p. lxxxv. sq.) Among such passages are, in particular, Gen. xii. 6; xiii. ; And the Canaanite was then in the land.' This remark, they say, could only have been made by a writer who lived in Palestine after the extirpa tion of the Canaanites. But the sense of the pas sage is not that the Canaanites had not as yet been extirpated, but merely that Abraham, on his arrival in Canaan, had already found there the Canaanites. This notice WaS necessary, since the author subse quently describes the intercourse between Abraham and the Canaanites, the lords of the country. Ac cording to the explanation given to the passage by the opponents, such an observation would be quite a superfluous triviality. Also the name Hebron (Gen. xiii. ; xxiii. 2), they say, was not intro duced till after the time of Moses (Josh. xiv. 15 ; xv. 13). This, however, does not prove anything, since Hebron was the original Hebrew name for the place, which was subsequently changed into Arba (by a man of that name), but was restored by the Israelites on their entrance into Canaan. The opponents also maintain that the name of the place Dan (Gen. xiv. 14) was given only in the post-Mosaical period (Josh. xbc. 47; Judg,. xviii. 29). But the two last passages speak of quite a different place. There were two places called Dan; Dan-yaan (2 Sam. xxiv. 6), and Dan-Laisk, or Leshem. In Genesis, they further add, fre quently occurs the name Bethel (xii. 8 ; xxviii. 19 ; xxxv 1,5) ; 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 patriarchal name, which the Israelites restored in the place of Luz, a name given by the Canaanites. Another passage in Genesis (xxxvi. Before there reigned any king- over the children of Israel,' is likewise supposed to have been written at a period when the Jews had already a king over them. But the broachers of these objections forget that this pas sage refers to those promises contained in the Pen tateuch in general, and in Genesis in particular (comp. Gen. xxxv. i), that there should hereafter be kings among- the Israelites as an independent nation. In comparing Israel with Edom (Gen. xxxvi.), the sacred writer cannot refrain from ob serving, that Edom, though left without divine pro mises 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 shew how admirably the observa tion suits a writer in the Mosaical period. The passage (Gen. xv. IS) 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 tirnes of David and Solo mon. Literally taken, however, the remark is in applicable 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 rheto rical sense, describing the central point of tbe proper country as situated between the two rivers.
The historical character of the contents of Gene sis forms a more comprehensive subject of theolo gical discussion. It is obvious that the opinions regarding it must be principally influenced by the dogmatical views and principles of the respective critics themselves. Hence the great variety of opinion that still prevails on that subject. Some, such as Vatke, Von Bohlen, and others, assert the whole contents of Genesis to be unhistorical. Tucla and other consider Genesis to be interwoven with mythical elements, but think that the rich histori cal elements, especially in the account of the patri archs, cau be clearly discerned. Some, again, limit the mythological part to the first two chapters only ; while others perceive in the whole book a consis tent and truly historical impress. The field of con troversy is here so extensive, and the arguments on both sides are so numerous, that we must content ourselves in this article with a very few remarks on the subject. Genesis is a book consisting of two contrasting parts ; the first part introduces us into 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 sublime and
wonderful events are described with childlike sim pliecity ; while in the latter, on the contrary, the most simple and common occurrences are inter woven 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 religious. Not the least trace of mythology appears in it. Consequently there are no mythical statements, because whatever is mythical belongs to mythology, and Genesis plainly shews how very far remote the Hebrew mode of thinking was from mythical poetry, which might have found ample opportunity of being brought into play when the writer began to sketch the early times of the Creation. It is true that the narra tions are fraught with wonders. But primeval wonders, the marvellous deeds of God, are the very subject of Genesis. None of these wonders, however, bear a fantastical impress, and there is no useless prodigality of them. They are all pene trated-and connected by one common leading idea, and are all related to the counsel of God for the salvation 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 institution throws a strong light upon the early patriarchal times ; the reality of the one proves the reality of the other, as described in Genesis.
The separate accounts in Genesis also manifest great internal evidence of truth if we closely examine them. They bear on their front the most beautiful itnpress of truth. The cosmogony in Genesis stands unequalled among all others known in the ancient world. No mythology, no ancient philosophy, has ever come up to the idea of a creation out of nothing,. All the ancient systems end in Pantheism, Mate rialism, Emanation-theory, etc. But the Biblical cosmogony occupies a place of its own, and there fore must not be mnked among, or confounded with, any of the ancient systems of mythology or philosophy. The mythological and philosophical cosmogonies may have been derived from the Bibli cal, as being later depravations and misrepresenta tions of Biblical truth ; but the contents of Genesis cannot, vice versd, have been derived from mytho logy or philosophy. Moreover, only with the Biblical fundamental idea of the relation of God to his creatures, consequently only with the doctrine of creation out of nothing, is it possible to furnish an historical representation of creation. Every sys tem deviating from this contains an internal con tradiction against history, because it necessarily substitutes the idea of eternity for that of time ; and consequently does not admit of any history, but only of either mythology or abstract reflection. The historical delineation also of the Creation and of the fall of man does not bear the least national interest or colouring, but is of a truly universal nature, while every mythus bears the stamp of the national features of the nation and country where it originated and found development. All mythi are subject to continual development and varia tions, but among the Hebrews the accounts in Genesis stand firm and immutable for all times, without the least thing being added or altered in them for the purpose of further development, even by the N. T. What a solid guarantee must there be in this foundation of all subsequent revelations, since it has been admitted and maintained by all generations with such immovable firmness ! The ancient heathen traditions coincide in many points with the Biblical accounts, and serve to illustrate and confirm them. This is especially the case in the ancient traditions concerning, the Deluge (Gen. vi. 9), and in the list of nations in the loth chap ter ; for instance (Gen. x. 4), Tarshish is called the son of Javan. This indicates that the ancient in habitants of Tarshish or Tartessus in Spain were erroneously considered to be a Phoenician colony like those of other towns in its neighbourhood, and that they sprang from Javan, that is, Greece. That they were of Greek origin is clear from the account of Herodotus (i. 163). Also (ver. 8), Nimrod, the ruler of Babel, is called the son of Cush, which is in remarkable unison with the mythological tales concerning Bel and his Egyptian descent (comp. Diodor. Sic. i. 2S, 81 ; Pausan, iv. 23. 5). Sidon alone is mentioned (ver. 15), but not Tyrus (comp. xlix. 13), which arose only in the time of Joshua (Josh. xix. 29) ; and that Sidon was an older town than 7),rus, by which it was afterwards eclipsed, is certified by a number of ancient reports (comp. Hengstcnberg, De Rebus 7:yriorum, pp. 6, 7).