A mere comparison of the two lists of pasScages se- lected hy these different writers as belonging to the original document is sufficient to show how very un- certain all such critical processes must be. The first, tliat of Lengerke, is open to many objections, which have been urged by Iliivernick (Einleit. in der Pent. § 117), Kanke, and others. Thus, for instance, vi, 6, ■which all agree in regarding as Elohistic, speaks of "great judgments" (□'^'?"1? n'^L3Sd'9 in the plural), wherewith God would redeem Israel, and j^et not a word is said of these in the so-called original docu- ment. Again, xii, 12, 23, 27 contains the announce- ment of the destruction of the first-born of Egypt, but the fulfilment of the threat is to be found, according to the critics, only in the later Jehovistic additions. Hupfeld has tried to escape this difficulty by supposing that the original documents did contain an account of the slaying of the first-born, as the institution of the Passover in xii, 12, etc., has clearh' a reference to it: only he will not allow that the story as it now stands is that account. But even then the difficult}' is only partially removed, for thus one judgment only is men- tioned, not many (vi, 6). Knobel has done his best to obviate this glaring inconsistency. Feeling no doubt that the ground taken by his predecessors was not tenable, he retains as a part of the original work much which they had rejected. It is especially worthy of notice that he considers some at least of the miracu- lous portions of the story to belong to the older docu- ment, and so accounts for the expression in vi, 6. The changing of Aaron's rod into a serpent, of the waters of the Nile into blood, the plague of frogs, of musqui- toes (A. Y. lice), and of boils, and the destruction of the first-born, are, according to Knobel, Elohistic. He points out what he considers here links of connection, and a regular sequence in the narrative. He bids us observe tliat Jehovah always addresses Moses, and that Moses directs Aaron how to act. The miracles, then, are arranged in order of importance : first there is the sign which serves to accredit the mission of Aaron ; next follow tliree plagues, which, however, do not touch men, and these are sent through the instrumen- talitj' of Aaron ; the fourth ]ilague is a plague upon man, and here Moses takes the most prominent part ; the fifth and last is accomplished b}' Jehovah himself. Thus the miracles increase in intensity as they go on. The agents likewise rise in dignity. If Aaron with his rod of might begins the work, he gives vfnj after- wards to his greater brother, whilst for the last act of redemption Jehovah employs no human agency, but himself with a mighty hand and outstretched arm ef- fects the deliverance of his people. The passages thus selected have no doubt a sort of connection, but it is in the highest degree arbitrary to conclude that because portions of a work may be omitted without seriously disturbing the sense, these portions do not belong to the original work, but must Ije regarded as subsequent embellishi)ients and additions.
Again, all agree in assigning chaps, iii and iv to the Jehovist. The call of Moses, as there described, is .said to 1)0 mereh' the Jehovistic parallel to vi, 2-vii, 7. Yet it seems improbable that the Elohist should intro- duce INIoses with the bare words, " And God spake to Moses" (vi, 2), without a single word as to the previous hi.storv of so remarkable a man. So argues Hiiver- nick, and, as it appears to us, not witliout reason. It will be ol)served that none of these critics attempt to make the divine names a criterion whereby to distin- guish the several documents. Thus, in tlie Jehovistic portion (i, 15-22), De Wette is obliged to remark, with a sort of uneasy candor, "but ver. 17, 20, J^loMm (?)," and again (iii, 4, 6, 11-1.">), "here seven times Elokim." In other jilaces tliere is the same difficult}' as' in xix, 17, 19, which Stahclin, as well as Knobel, gives to the
Jehovist. In the passages in chaps, vii, viii, ix, which Knobel classes in the earlier record, the name Jehovah occurs throughout. It is obvious, then, that there must be other means of determining the relative an- tiquity of the different portions of the book, or the at- tempt to ascertain which are earlier and which are later must entirely fail.
Accordingly, certain peculiarities of style are sup- posed to be characteristic of the two documents. Thus, for instance, De Wette (Einl. § 151, S. 183) appeals to
r^::^'^^ ms, i, 7; TMn ''n c:s"s, xii, 17, 41 ; n^rn
n'^'^2,vi,4; the formula ^:cxb no^ bx i"i "aTil, XXV, 1 ; XXX, 11, etc. ; 511X32, vi, 26 ; vii, 4 ; xii, 17, 41, 51; ninnrn lin, xii, 6; xxix, 41; xxx, 8, and other expressions, as decisive of the Elohist. 8tahe- lin also proposes on very similar grounds to separate the first from the second legislation. " Wherever," he says, " I find mention of a pillar of fire, or of a cloud (Exod. xxxiii, 9, 10), or an 'angel of Jehovah,' as Exod. xxiii, xxiv, or the phrase 'flowing with milk and honey,' as Exod. xiii, 5; xxxiii, 3 . . . where men- tion is made of a coming down of God, as Exod. xix, xxxiv, 5, or where the Canaanitish nations are num- bered, or the tabernacle supposed to be without the camp (Exod. xxxiii, 7), I feel tolerably certain that I am reading the words of the author of the second leg- islation (i. e. the Jehovist)." But these nice critical distinctions are very precarious, especially in a stereo- typed language like the Hebrew.