Secondly, however, and closely connected with the above, what we have really to do with, at Jeast in the Jacob-narratives, are not the actions and experiences of individuals, but the relations of one people to another, namely, of Israel towards the Edomites (Esau) on the one hand, and the Arameans (Laban) on the other. The Esau- narratives are the naive deposit of the reflexions of very early times as to why the brother who was notoriously the firstborn, 7.¢. who attained to a settled life and to importance sooner than Israel, was yet surpassed by the younger. From the Arameeans, again, Israel had from olden times experienced so much hostility that we can readily understand how the cheating of the greedy Ara- meean by Jacob should have been regarded as quite right and proper, and the exercise of this right have formed the subject of unmitigated rejoicing.
(6) Notwithstanding all this, however, we must still ask the final question, Is it really the case
ooo
that the above-cited instances of morally objec- tionable actions are recorded without a word of censure or disapproval? First, then, it may be observed that in this matter the E source, in opposition to or at least deviating to some extent from J, repeatedly offers a narrative in which the cause of offence, if not wholly removed, is made as slight as possible. This is a proof that at least towards the end of our period a finer moral sensi- tiveness had come in to sit in judgment on those ancient narratives. Sarah is, according to H, really Abraham’s sister on the father’s side (Gn 20%), so that Abraham is cleared of the charge of lying. It is only with great reluctance, and not till he has received the express command of God, that Abraham consents to the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael (21™% [E]; contrast 16° [J]). In the transactions of Laban and Jacob, it is not the latter, but Laban alone, that is guilty of deceit and violent dealing (314%:).* Reuben advises, in- deed, that Joseph be cast into the empty cistern, but it is with the intention of delivering him. Joseph’s brothers did not sell him (as J records), but he was stolen out of the cistern by a passing company of Midianites (3772 23-24. 28a c. 29f 4(Qlsa),
(c) But there is yet another fact to be taken into account. It has been rightly noticed that it is the peculiarity of a particular form of narration in the legendary history to avoid passing any direct judg- ment upon the transactions described, but to allow this judgment to be expressed indirectly by one of the parties concerned. Thus Abimelech in Gn 20% (E) severely condemns the conduct of Abraham, and in 26% (J) that of Isaac. In 27}? Jacob him- self declares that by imposing upon his father he will exhibit himself in the light of one who mocks at sacred things, and who thus deserves a curse and not a blessing.
8. But, in addition to the narratives belonging to this period, the oldest codification of legal ordinances, the so-called Book of the Covenant, also contains notable evidences of a moral disposi- tion, which could have grown up only upon the soil of a considerably elevated religious system. True reverence for parents regards it as an offence worthy of death to strike or to curse them (Ex 2115.17), Jn dispensing justice the strictest recti- tude and impartiality are to be observed (23% ®:), Mildness ‘and pity are due to the poor (22758. 26f), protection from harsh treatment and violence to the gér (227 23°) and even to the slave (21? 6) ; the latter is even to be let go free if his master have struck out a tooth. The Sabbath is to be pre-eminently a day of rest for cattle, menials, and gérim (employed as hirelings). As to the command in 23** to take back to an enemy his ox or ass when they have strayed, and to help him to raise up an ass that has sunk under its bur- den, this does not, indeed, as yet amount to the Christian command of love to one’s enemy, but it is a first step towards it. For it demands a subduing
of carnal hatred and malice, a self-denial of which .
the natural man and natural ethics know nothing, but which is required by that God who watches the conduct of His people and seeks to redress every species of wrong and oppression. For, evidently, it is not only of the poor that the saying (22?”) holds good: ‘When he erieth unto me, I will hear him ; for | am pitiful.’
Since the discovery of the diorite block with the code of the Babylonian king Hammurabi (see art. CoDE or HAMMURABI in present volume, p. 584 ff.), many hands have been busy seeking to demonstrate
* Tt was quite a perverse attempt that was made by the older harmonizers to remove the contradiction between 314 [E] and 8037 [J] by assuming that in 314f Jacob tells a false story to his wives. The fact is that we have here K’s account of things,
which is meant to be taken seriously, and which completely clears Jacob of blame. as
RELIGION OF ISRAEL
RELIGION OF ISRAEL 665
not only the considerable priority (¢. 2300 B.C.) of this law-book to the oldest codification of laws in Israel, but even its higher standing in all matters of justice and social order. We readily admit that the laws of Hammurabi imply much more compli- cated conditions of society than the enactments of the Book of the Covenant, which are intended for a simple race of peasants, and that, consequently, the juridical technique of Hammurabi may fre- quently exhibit a higher level. A fair estimate of the two codes is reached, however, not by comparing the matter which they have in common, but by look- ing at the sayings where the Book of the Covenant has the advantage over the Babylonian code. But these are the sayings to which we have already adverted, regarding the poor, gérim, slaves, and enemies, and for paraliels to them we may search the 282 paragraphs of Hammurabi in vain, because such are impossible on the soil of natural religion.