Elohist has more elevated notions of the Godhead than the Jahvist. The God of whom he writes appears in dreams (Gen. xx. 3; xxxi. 24; Num. xxii. 9, 20), or acts through the ministry of angels (Gen. xxi. 17; xxii. 11; xxviii. 12; xxxi. 11; xxxii. 2; xlviii. 16; Exod. iii. 2). Closely connected with this finer view of religion, is the presentation of Abraham as a prophet and intercessor (Gen. xx. 7), and the mention of Jacob's putting away the strange gods and amulets from his household (Gen. xxxv. 4) before he builds the altar to God at Bethel. He shows what may be called an antiquarian interest: it is in him we find the old word for a piece of money, viz., Kesitah (Gen. xxxiii. 19); it is he who notes the Aramæan origin of the teraphim (Gen. xxxi. 19 seq.; XXXV. 2 seq.); he is well informed about Egyptian matters, and in general he has given a number of concrete facts and names which are not to be found elsewhere. Although, as has been said above, he removes God further from men, he gives increasing prominence to the supernatural. Thus he makes Moses bring the plagues by the use of his magical rod. Finally, his stories of the patriarchs all centre round the shrines and sacred places of northern Israel, such as Shechem, Mahanaim, Jabbok, Peniel, Gilead, etc. No doubt he has much to say of Beersheba in the extreme south, but this is just one of the exceptions which prove the rule. For Beersheba was a place of pilgrimage highly esteemed in the northern kingdom (Amos viii. 14). Hence, though there is much dispute about the place in which the Jahvist wrote, there is a general consensus of critics that the Elohist belonged to the northern kingdom.

The points of difference between the Jahvist and Elohist in vocabulary and style are numerous and interesting. They are recounted by Dillmann in the third volume of his Commentary on the Hexateuch, pp. 617, 623 seq. Only a few specimens can be given here. The Jahvist uses the name Yahweh throughout : the Elohist never before Exod. iii. The Jahvist calls Jacob in the latter part of his life 'Israel'; the Elohist retains the name 'Jacob.' The Jahvist speaks of 'Sinai,' the Elohist of 'Horeb'

יך

or 'the Mount of God.' The Jahvist calls the aborigines of Palestine 'Canaanites,' the Elohist 'Amorites.' The Jahvist calls a female slave or concubine Пn, the Elohist invariably . The Jahvist uses 7 and its derivatives for the 'hardening' of of the heart, etc., the Elohist uses the hiphil of pin. The Jahvist calls a bag or sack лnл, the Elohist p. It must be remembered that these are only samples from a mass of characteristic differences. Some of them depend on grammatical peculiarities and turns of phrase. The Jahvist sometimes uses the emphatic ending in and constantly prefers the pronominal suffix to the separate accusative with ns. The Elohist, on the other hand, sometimes construes Elohim with the plural (Gen. xx. 13; xxxv. 7; Josh. xxiv. 19), and such forms of address and answer as 'And he said to him, "Abraham, Abraham," and he said "Here am I,”’ are characteristic of him (Gen. xxii. 1; in LXX. 11; xlvi. 2; Exod. iii. 4).

We cannot consider the way in which the Jahvist and Elohist documents were united without anticipating to some extent a question which has been reserved for separate examination, viz., the date of the documents which compose the Hexateuch. Moreover, several theories are still held on the manner in which, and the time at which, the Jahvist and Elohist became one book. Dillmann holds that they remained separate till they fell into the hands of the final editor, who united all the documents of the Hexateuch together. Kittel inclines to think that the union of Jahvist and Elohist was not effected till both were united with Deuteronomy. Others (Wellhausen, Kuenen, etc.) believe that Jahvist and Elohist were made into one book before they were joined to any other part of the Hexateuch. The last view is, as I venture to think, the only tenable one, and for these reasons: The Jahvist and Elohist were still separate when the Deuteronomist wrote, for in his summary of the previous history he almost always follows the Elohist, and few will adopt the unlikely hypothesis that he took the pains to separate the Elohist elements and assimilated them. Afterwards the Jahvist and Elohist docu

ments were made into one book. The process involved considerable mutilation, besides an interpolation here and there in the interests of harmony. Now, while we find Jahvist and Elohist constantly-often, indeed, inextricably-united, they both stand, with few exceptions, quite apart from the 'Priestly' document. Again, till we come to the book of Joshua we scarcely ever find an historical trace of that Deuteronomical colouring which is so marked, and therefore so easy to detect. Once more, a writer of the Deuteronomical school enriched the Deuteronomical code with a preface (Deut. i.-iv. 44). Why should he have done so if the 'Oldest Book of Hebrew History,' compiled from the Jahvist and Elohist, already stood before the Deuteronomical law? Accordingly, we conclude that the Jahvist and Elohist were united by an editor who belonged neither to the school of the Deuteronomist nor the 'Priestly Writer,' who had no direct concern either with the Deuteronomical or the 'Priestly' code, but who wrought independently.

(b) The Deuteronomical Code and the Deuteronomical Historians.

The Jahvist and Elohist, with differences in detail, breathe the same spirit. The book of Deuteronomy introduces us to a different world. The first and most evident distinction is that the Jahvist and Elohist are historians. The book of Deuteronomy is chiefly legal. It justly claims to rank as a book of law, and this is still more apparent if we take the original code by itself. It professes to give a series of enactments which were to be the basis of a covenant between Yahweh and Israel. If we read Deut. iv. 45-xxvi. ; xxvii. 9, 10; xxviii. ; xxxi. 9-13 together, we have a connected and consistent whole.

First, in iv. 45-49 we have the title of the code, 'These are the testimonies and the statutes and the judgments which Moses spoke to the children of Israel,' etc. This is followed in v.-xi. by a long hortatory address. Moses goes back nearly forty years to the time when the law which he now promulgates was first com

municated to him on Horeb. The decalogue which Yahweh proclaimed to the people there is repeated here, and, although Moses is always on the point of beginning to give the code of laws which he is now to publish, he pauses again and again: he enlarges on the dangers of disobedience, on the need of divine help, and he reminds the people of their sin in the worship of the golden calf. Undoubtedly this long introduction is trying to the reader's patience; but it never loses sight of the law which it introduces. Moreover, this rhetorical manner reappears in the law itself. The Deuteronomist turns the principles of the prophets into a code, and therefore retains much of the prophetic style. The stream is coloured by the soil from which it sprang. The Law proper begins with the twelfth chapter. On the whole, order and connection are well maintained. After a denunciation of Canaanite idolatry, the eating of blood, and the offering of sacrifice except at the one central shrine, we have laws against false prophets who seduce the people to idolatry, laws on the destruction of idolatrous cities and the avoidance of all contamination, with positive enactments on tithes of vegetable produce, the consecration of the firstlings of cattle, the year of release, the manumission of Hebrew slaves, and the three great feasts. This set of laws directly religious (xii.-xvi. 17) is followed by civil ordinances (xvi. 18-xx.) on 'judges and officers,' and particularly on the king, on cities of refuge, on removal of landmarks, on witnesses, on war. Even here the religious interest of the legislator betrays itself, and laws against the idolatrous 'pillars' and sacred trees, on offering victims without blemish or flaw, on stoning idolaters, are intruded in this second division. Still, we have, perhaps, as much order as can be looked for in an Oriental code; and it is to be remarked that the digression on the stoning of idolaters is, after all, connected with the context by its reference to the law concerning witnesses. In the third division (xxi.-xxv.) we have a number of laws, chiefly short ones, enumerated on no clear system, the reason being that the Deuteronomist has taken over material from other sources. In chap. xxvi. the lawgiver returns to his favourite

themes the central sanctuary, the firstlings, the tithes, the Levitical priests. The law being now given, a covenant is concluded on that basis between Yahweh and Israel (xxvi. 16-19). The people are told that they are now Yahweh's people (xxvii. 9, 10); blessings and curses are appended as the sanctions of the law (xxviii.); and, finally (xxxi. 9-13), Moses writes the law down, gives a copy of it to 'the priests the sons of Levi,' and orders the whole code to be read to the whole people once every seven years at the feast of tabernacles.

We may now proceed to note the chief points of contrast between the Deuteronomical code and the 'Oldest Book of Hebrew History.' The most evident contrast is that between a code and a book of history. Even between the code which the 'Oldest Book of Hebrew History' does contain, and the code of the Deuteronomist, the contrast is very great. The smaller code, viz., the 'Book of the Covenant,' may have been intended originally for the private use of those who sat in judgment. It makes no claim to be Mosaic, much less to have been spoken by God. True, the Elohist does make these claims for it, and asserts that it was the basis of a covenant between God and Israel. Yet even he neither asserts that it was a popular book, nor does anything appear to give it this character. But Deuteronomy does claim to be a sacred book, and a book for the people. It is that or nothing. It is given by Yahweh : it is placed in the keeping of the priests who bear the ark: it is to be read periodically to men, women, and children. The king is to provide himself with a copy of 'this law,' and to 'read therein all the days of his life.' National prosperity depends on the observance of this law. In short, Deuteronomy is a sacred scripture, and, if the Jews had never had any other sacred writing, Mohammed might still have called them Ahl Ulkitab, 'The people of the book.'

1 'A copy of this law,' Deut. xvii. 18. The false and ungrammatical translation of the LXX., TO DEUTEрovóμov тоûто, has led (1) to the current name of the book, (2) to the erroneous belief that Deuteronomy professes to stand in relation to some other law.