ortions of the Law. That this is really the case, however, becomes somewhat doubtful upon closer examination. In both sections we have mention of the three great feasts of later legislation, which are to be kept unto J’—the feast of Unleavened Bread, of Weeks, and of Ingathering. And accord- ing to subsequent usage it is in connexion with the first, the feast of Unleavened Bread, held in the month of Abib, the month in which Israel came out of Egypt (Ex 23" 3.418), that we should expect to find mention of the Passover. It might, indeed, seem that this was intended in Ex 34!-, where, breaking the parallelism to the account of Ex 23, there is a command regarding the offering of the firstborn males of all the herds. One might naturally conclude that this sacrifice came at the time of the preceding feast. However this may be, the ‘ Book of the Covenant’ in its present form knows nothing of such a connexion, for there the firstborn is to be offered on the eighth day, after
227, Nowack et al. make this a later insertion
see Arch. ii. 147, n. 3). Furthermore, there is in the ‘ Book of the Covenant’ nothing that can be legitimately interpreted as a reference to the Pass- over. This is certainly true of the expression in 23'%, which one would naturally limit neither to the Passover nor to the sacrifice of the firstborn, but rather would understand as referring to all bloody offerings and as including all feasts. Possibly we should so vocalize as to read the
lural ‘my sacrifices’ and ‘my feasts’ (31, "20; ef.
ill.-Rys. Com. in loco. In Ex 34% LXX reads θυμιαμάτων μου). As to Ex 34, where the explicit mention of the Passover is met with at present, we need to note, first, that the term agg (ποθ πὶ 3n) is nowhere else in the Pent. applied to the Pass- over, but confined mainly, if not exclusively, to the three great feasts mentioned above (cf. Driver, Deut. p. 188; and on hagg, Wellh. Reste Arab. Heidentums, 1897, pp. 681 and 79ff.). Such a usage (cf. Ezk 45") as we have here indicates the blending of Passover and mazzith (feast of Un- leavened Bread); but in Dt, where this actually occurs, we find no such designation for the Easter festival as a whole. It may well be, as some maintain (Wellh. Proleg.‘ p. 84; Benzinger, Arch. 470 n.; W. R. Smith, Lncyc. Brit.® xviii. 343 as against ARS 221 n.), that the expression is a later insertion which makes specific application of the more general principle stated in 23, If, however, we think the passage should be retained and assigned to J, as many do (Nowack, l.c. ii. 147, n. 3; Bertholet, Deut. p. 50, e¢ al.), then we may claim the early occurrence of the name Passover, but can not affirm any connexion between it and mazzéth. The point of the verse would be, that in the case of the Basaran, as in that of other animal sacrifices, everything in the nature of putrefaction must be avoided. [Ὁ would thus stand as a pre- cursor of the kindred Levitical ordinances of later times. We find among other primitive peoples injunctions of like nature in relation to sacrifice (ct. RS p. 221; Smend, AT Relig.-Gesch. p. 140).
Ex 1277 may be next considered. It states how Moses summons the elders, and bids them go and kill the Passover, as though such a command needed no further explanation. With a bunch of hyssop (cf. Lv 14) they are to stain the lintel and the doorposts, and no one is to leave his home until the morning. All this is to be done because J’ is to _ through and smite the Egyptians; but where He sees the blood on the doorway He will not allow the destroyer to enter. This same cere- mony is to_be observed hereafter as a lasting memorial. In the Promised Land they are to keep it, and een its significance to their children. They are to tell them it is the sacrifice of the Pass- over to J”, who passed over the houses (Π3 Sy mo5) of Israel, and delivered them, when He smote the Egyptians. On hearing this the people bow in worship and proceed to do as commanded.
It is generally recognized that we have in this section an account not originally belonging to the present context, although it seems at first sight to fit in admirably with the preceding narrative, and to tell how Moses imparted the command to the people which he had received from J”. It is, how- ever, a very different command in content and in language. The essential details previously given (ν.5 8.) are not included, and, what is even more important, new ones are introduced and emphasized. There is no hint that it is the firstborn who are slain, no allusion to the paschal meal, but the blood ceremonial* is the all-important feature. The conception is, that the blood stained on the doorway works exemption from destruction for alf
* On the translation threshold in v.2 for basin (η0), cf. below
being seven days with its dam (Ex 22%); cf, Ly | iis.
PASSOVER
within ; but there is no explanation as to how this comes about. The resemblance to v.™ may ex- pan why the section wasinserted here. Whatever he source from which it came, the simplicity of detail as over against the former account (νν.}.18) supports the view of its purity and independence. In its essence it may go back to JE, even though, as most agree, its present form is later than Dt (cf. Wellh. Comp. d. Hex. p. 75; Dill.-Rys. Com. pp- 111, 126; Nowack, ArcA, ii. 148 n. 1).