sive novellae were doubtless attached to it before the work of R began, but these do not belong to our present subject.

The work of R, the final redactor of JEDP shows that to him P was preeminently the sacred code. Its views and phraseology are shared by him, and in cases of duplication he almost invariably sacrifices the older work to P, making the latter the "groundwork" of the entire structure. Under such conditions it is not difficult to distinguish and to characterize his work. It was thorough and comprehensive, but even towards JED manifests a scrupulous, not to say devout, regard for the material. It was unavoidable on this plan that JED's account of things which could not be told twice over, such as the construction of the ark, and deaths of the patriarchs, should be stricken out; but so far as possible the divergent traits of JED were preserved and inserted where room could be found, dislocating to some extent the earlier narrative, as in Num. xx. Iff., but preserving the material to the verge of self-contradiction (cf. Num. xvi. 28-34, with vs. 35 and xxvi. 11). Examples of R's work in Genesis appear generally in slight touches of adjustment, but xxxvi. 1-5 is substantially his, and xlvi. 8-27 also, if not from P3. Similar light touches appear in the later books, where, as in Num. xvi. ; xx. 1–13; Dt. i. 3; iv. 41-43, the narratives came into close contact. The difficulty is to distinguish R from P3, whose supplementations extended, as Popper has shown by a comparison of the LXX. text of Ex. xxxv.-xl. with the Massoretic, down to the third century B. C. But these latest occasional touches have scarcely affected the narrative, which received practically its final form at the hands of R, probably not far from the close of the fifth century B. C.

If there is one feature of the Documentary Theory which appears to be more offensive than another to the advocates of tradition it would seem to be the doctrine of repeated redactions of the text, whichwe have thus endeavored to set in outline before the reader. For some reason it appears to them incompatible with any view of divine authorship of the Bible. And

yet it is to the very same principle of redaction that they have recourse when the improbability of Moses' writing the account of his own death is pointed out, or when appeal is made to the innumerable post-Mosaica alluded to in our preceding volume. These are explained as the work of later hands. In fact the phenomena of redaction become absolutely undeniable the moment we reach the epoch where comparison is possible with parallel versions and texts. But why should divine authorship be incompatible with an almost continuous process of human redaction? When through the extrication of J's inherently credible story of the passage of the Red Sea the divine element in the event shall we say "sinks"? nay-rises to the level of providential instead of miraculous intervention, the story becomes not less, but more truly a manifestation of "God in history.” In like manner, when deposits of the three great streams of religious thought of Ephraim, Judah and post-exilic Judaism gradually accumulate under providential control and guidance into the Bible of Jesus and the apostles, the resultant literary composite is more than ever entitled to be called the product of no mere human wisdom. It is seen to be a work and word of God, slowly-developed through many ages of his self-manifestation in Hebrew thought and literature.

TYPOGRAPHIC SIGNS AND

ABBREVIATIONS.

J. Judean prophetic writer, circ. 800 B. C., in this type.

E. Ephraimite prophetic writer, circ. 750 B. C., in this type. P. Priestly law-book, circ. 450 B. C., in this type.

J2. Editorial additions to J, 800–722 B. C., in this type.

E2. JE and Rd, additions to E, harmonistic adjustments of JE and Deuteronomic expansions, 722-200 B. C., in this type, or smaller.

P3 Rp and R (sometimes Rd), additions to P or JEDP in the priestly style and sense, 450-200 B. C., in this type.

Ps. mist.

Psalm; Dh-Historical Deuteronomist;

Dp Parenetic Deuterono

Supplied material in [_], displaced in ; characteristic expressions in Part II. in ', word-plays in ". Corrupt text is indicated by *, omitted legislative sections by ****, words lost or unintelligible by Ch.=chapter, chh. chapters; vs.=verse, vv. verses; f. following verse, page or chapter; ff. following verses, etc.; cf.=compare, ct.= contrast. Sam.=Samaritan text, LXX. Septuagint, Vulg.=Vulgate. Arts. I. II. III. IV.=my discussions of § § I. II. III. IV., in “Journ. Bibl. Lit." ix. 2-xii. 1 (1890-1893). Z. A. W.=Zeitschrift für alttestamentliche Wissenschaft; Comp. Wellhausen's Composition des Hexateuch's, Berlin, 1889; Ex. u. Lev. and Nu. Dt. Jos. Dillmann's commentaries on Ex.—Jos., Leipzig, 1880 and 1886. Hex.=Kuenen's Hexateuch, trans. Wicksteed, London, 1886. Jülicher's thesis, Quellen von Ex. i-vii., Halle 1880, and his articles in Jahrb. f. prot. Theol. viii. are referred to as A and B. Other references explain themselves.

EXODUS.

PROLEGOMENA.

A natural division of the story of Israel exists between the end of Genesis, the history of the primitive and patriarchal period, and the beginning of Exodus, the history of Israel's birth and development as a nation. This division would seem to be even more clearly marked in the earliest form of the story than at present, for critics discover in Exodus the same structure as in Genesis. The same principal sources, J, E and P, marked by the same characteristics, are here woven together in the same manner as there, and apparently by the same hands. Now in P, the priestly lawbook, commonly regarded by critics as the latest source, and in E, the Ephraimite document, which we regard as later than J, there is at least an attempt to bridge over the chasm between the story of Israel as a family of 70 individuals, and as a nation. In P the genealogies (i. 1-6; vi. 14-27) are continued in unbroken line, giving in the case of Miriam, Aaron and Moses the third, in other cases the fourth generation (Gen. xv. 16) as that of the Exodus. In E (Gen. 1. 23) “the children of Machir the son of Manasseh were born upon Joseph's knees," and this same Machir is the one who in Num. xxxii. 39ff. is represented as receiving from Moses at the end of the 40 years' wandering the land of Gilead, and making conquest of it. Hence the date given by P in xii. 41, of 430 years, which nearly all interpreters agree is to be reckoned from the migration of Abraham (Gen. xv. 15f.) presents a period too long, if anything, for the genealogies of either P or E. But these genealogical data, while apparently adding to the continuity and historical value of the story, in reality obscure the fact, which in J seems to have been left plain, that a great gulf exists between the folk

I