372
HEXATEUCH
llEXATEUCH
dilFiculty. At first sight we should naturally think that it belongs to E, because of Eluhiin in vv.'* and *', and it is so referred by Dillmann ; but the word, which is after all only one out of many criteria, may have been used purposely to express the alistraut idea of God. The divine nature was ?uch that even to see God, far more to wrestle with Him, meant death. And there are, in fact, (nany reasons for ascribing the passjige to J. (1) The crude anthropomorphism is more in accord- ance with J's conception of God, see Gn 3' 8-' 11' 18'-', Ex 4" etc. L, indeed, is fond of dreams described as dreams (Gn 20^ 28"'-" 40. 41), but ivith .1 even these are described realistically (see
Gn 15", and cf. es"-'" (J) with 28
0,;13. 17 eu.
(E)).
(2) Stories explanatory of place-names are far more characteristic of J than of E. (3) V.'-^'' is a doublet of v.", which speaks of the present as having already gone over. We may confidentlv then nssi-n to E 32'- =■'»'-», to J 323-"^ w-s^. the ex- amination of this chapter will give some idea of the methods by whicli J and E may be often separated, but it must be admitted that in many ca.ses, as in Gn 27''^, the analysis is much more difficult and uncertain.
C. For a complete analysis of JE throughout the Hexateuch the reader is referred to the critical works enumerated at the end of this article, especially the Tables prefixed to Holzingcr's work, and artt. E.KODUS, NuMnER.s, etc. Sometimes the Bubject-niatter forms indirectly a siiflicient criterion for E or J. In the last chapters of Genesis and the early chapters of Exo<lus we find, as already noticed, two tiistinct traditions with regard to the locality occupied by the Israelites — one representing them as being in Goshen, apart from Egypt ; the other as being among the Egj-ptians, employing the same midwi\es, able in the hurried departure of the night-journey to borrow jewels of their Egj'ptian neighbours, their houses so close together that the ditierence put by J" between the Egyptians and Israel in the plague of the firstborn was a miracle of Divine Providence. The second view is certainly that of P (see Gn 47'^-'-"), but we find it also running through several JE sections. Now there are several reasons for ascribing Gn 46^-47' to J, among them being the prominence given to Judah, as in what we have reason to believe to be the J fractions of 37. 38. and 43, and the use of the word 'Israel' for 'Jacob,' the latter being generally found in E. It will therefore follow that in the JE portions all the sections in which Goshen is spoken of as the homo of the Israelites belong to J, the rest to E.
D. The general characteristics of JE stand in marked contrast to P. The narratives are full of life and movement, and have a genuine local colour. The characters are men and women with flesh and blood, engaged in all the real and varied occupations of a simple and natural life. The stories are never so subordinated to a religious or historical purpose as to lose their individual interest. They give the impression that, from whatever sources the ivriters may have derived the thread of their stories, the colouring is that of a life with which they were familiar in all its asjiects. But beyond tliis it will be found that .1 and E have each sufficiently marked characters of their own. The God of E is a God separate from man, who reveals Himself usually by a voice from heaven, often that of an angel, as in Gn 21" 22" (where Etohim seems to have been altered into J" to agree with 22'-') ; so in Gn 28"" the angels need a ladder to ascend and descend to and from God (contrast J's account in ver." ' and behold J" stood beside him,'). Or God reveals Himself by a dream, as in Gn 20* 31". Even when anthropomorphic expies.sions are nsed, as 'God came,' Nu 22",
'the finger of God,' Ex SI'", 'spake unto Mosei face to face,' Ex 33" (cf. Nu 12"), they do not seem, as in J, to convey any definite anthropo- morphic idea. But the J" of J is much mora huiuaii. Though recognized as 'the God of heaven' and tne 'God of earth,' Gn 24' etc., He was 3'et believed on occasions to have in Hia own person walked and talked with men, Gn 3' Igi.tc. .isi3_ jTx 4-'., go that Abraham actually mistook Him for a man, and Jacob wrestled witli Him by night, Gn 32-''. He needed to go down in order to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded, and again to see whether the Sodomites had done altogether according to the cry which had reached Him in heaven, Gn IP 18". E lias a good deal more to say of religious worship, especially in connexion with ditl'erent localities, such as Bethel and Shechem, so much so that God is once actually called ' the (jod of Bethel,' Gn 35'. To E belong the earliest sacrificial laws, Ex 20-"*. E mentions the construction of the holy Tent of Meeting, 33'"", and the ark, which is spoken of almost as though it were itself an object of religious worship, Nu 10™"". V. also speaks of other primitive symbols of worship, as, notably, pillars, Gn 28"'- -'■' 31« 35'-' (probably taken froiu E though in a P section). Ex 24' ; teraphim, Gn 31'»-*'; the brazen serpent, Nu 2P"' (cf. 2 K 18'). But such symbols do not always meet with approval. Jacob as an act of exceptional piety makes his family put away their strange gods (fcrnphim) and ear-rings (a religious charm?), Gn 35-"'; the calf- worship is condemned, Ex 32. E also has a reference to tithe in Gn 28". In J the feasts of the sacrificial laws, in their earliest form at any rate, have less of a ritual element. Ex 34'»-»', cf. 231"-*'. As compared with E, J's narratives are, on the whole, more graphic and picturesf^ue, and appeal more powerfully to the imagination, as especially »ir. 2"'-3. 24, Ex 2 ; but this is partly due to the subjects treated of. J's style is remarkably easy and sinii)le, that of E is somewhat more still and formal, and the treatment more dignified, as in Gn 22. We have a good illustration of their difTerence of character in their treatment of the mar\'ellous. In J the most wonderful phenomena appear quite natural. The writer feels himself in an ideal fairy land in which no wonders are surprising. When we are told that J" brings the animals to the man to see what he would call them, we do not think of asking how this was possible, or even how it was done. But in other cases what in E are insisted upon as miracles, are in J ascribed to natural means. In J Jacob obtains his flocks and herds by a cunning trick thoroughly in keeping with his character, Gn 3(P"''^. In E it is by a special act of God's providence, 31''"". In J the wonders of Egj'pt are performed by natural agency. It is an east wind that brings the locusts, Ex 10", that drives back the waters of the Red Sea, 14^'. In E these are performed by the, so to speak, magic