books it is far from conclusive. But the priority to these prophets is made still more likely by the attitude of E towards religious s\ mbola (see above, iii. 3. D). Hosea and Amos, while they show that such symbols still existed as a matter of course, evidently regarded them with disfavour. It is significant also that E, though disapproving of human sacrifice, exhibits no horror at the thought of it. To accept the blood of victims instead was a gracious act of God, who was will- ing in mercy to waive His just rights (Gn 22). Again, the fact that E speaks of Abraham, Moses, etc., as prophets (see iii. 3. /^), points to a time when the prophet occupied an influential position. Add to this that the highest teachin" of .IE re- sembles that of the prophets. We can hardly then be far WToiig in regarding the times of Hosea and Amos as the terminus ad quern for JE. But the dillerences of character between J and E, especi- ally in their theological conceptions, tend to show that J is the older of the two documents. More- over, the dillerences that we find within each of thesedocuments, but most especially in J (see below, iii. 4. A ), make it likely that both J and E were ori<jinally collections of stories varying in date, and probably handed down for the most part, if not entirely, by oral tradition, some of them, it may be, centuries before they were committed to writing. Probably, as among other nations, the oldest which acquired a fixed form were popular songs describing some great national events, such as the Song of Miriam (Ex 15) and those preserved in Nu 21 (cf. also the Song of Deborah, Jg 5). In Gn 4'-^- '^ we have evidently a fragment of a song far older than the text with which it is incorporated. The chief allusion in the poem was apparently not understood, or at any rate is left unexplained by J. The attempt to fix the date of JE by comparing the patriarchal stories with the relations between the Israelites and the surrounding tribes is not very satisfactory. It may be true that the origin attributed to the Moabites and Ammonites is due to the animosity felt against these related peoples, but the animosity was so constant, at least from the time of the Judges, that we get little help in fixing the date of the story. Again, to refer the whole story of Joseph to the ascendency of the Northern kingdom in the time of Jeroboam II., and date its origin at this period, is to suppose it a deliberate invention, not, as the analogy of other such stories renders far more probable, a legend which had gradually grown up by oral tradition. From the importance attached to the local sanctuaries of Bethel, Shechem, and Beerslieba (which last belonged to Simeon, one of the ten tribes), and the great prominence of Joseph, the father of Ephraim ana Mana.sseh, it has generally been supposed that E at any rate was the procfuct of the l^ingdom of I.srael. Add to this that the North, the mission field of Elijah and Elisha, was in early times the chief scene of literary and prophetic activity. These arguments apply also, but with less force, to J, where Hebnm takes the place of Beerslieba as the abode of Abraham and Jacob ; and Judah, instead of Reuben, holds a prominent place in the history of Joseph. From these facts it has been argued that J, though its material wa.s originally derived from the same source as E, either in oral or WTitten form, is in its present form the work of a Jewish composer or editor.
G. It is probable that J and E were blended into one whole before D's law-book was composed, as Ut 5-11 suppose it. Even if these chapters are not the work of D proper, they must have been added very shortly after.
4. Distinctions within the various sources. — Wo have hitherto resjarded the difl'erent soure-!!
374
IIEXATEUCII
HKXATiaX'lI
of the Hexatcuch, for the most part, as thou^'h they were each lioiiio^'oneous in character. In a cer- tain sense th«>y are, in tluit they possess individual characters which distin^'uish each from the rest ; hut within these are found considerahle variations, just aa ^^e find among plants or animals several distinctly characterized species under one genus, or, to use a still hetter simile, varieties under one species It is, in fact, prohable tliat each of these larger sources represents in itself the result of a literary process extending in some cases over centuries.
A. For example, in the J sections of Gn the Flood story, with the beginnings of civilization and the dispersion of races following upon it (ll''"), seems hardly consistent with the growth of civilization described in 4"'". It has also been suggested that Noah the inventor of \vine (9^") belongs to a distinct cycle of legends from Noah the hero of the Flood, and that 6''^givesadifrerent explanation of the origin of sin from 3. Finally, it seems probable that the story of Nimrod, etc. (10*"'"), came from the same cycle of stories as the Flood story, and is also of Accadian origin. Hence some critics have drawn a definite distinction be- tween two series of stories, which they have de- noted as J' and J' respectively. To tlie latter AVellhausen ascribes J's Flood, together with 108-H. 18b. IB. 21. M-30 iji-s go„,g crftics, however, have ascribed 6''* as well as lo"-"* to revisers of JE (JE'). Attention has been called to the fact that whereas in .1- the three sons of Noah are Japheth, Ham, Shem (Gn 10), the sons of Noah in J 1 (920-37) -(vere originally, as vv.^-" apparently show, Shem, Canaan, Japheth. In Gn 12 and later chap- ters J' has been found by some critics a convenient peg on which to hang unknown fragments, inter- polations, etc., such as IS'""-'" IS"""- ^-s*', and even 20", passages usually referred to JE' or K.