and adds no new fact whatever. It is certainly and solely redactional (Rp). In addition to its connection with vs. 6, vs. 3 has E features of its own (cf. Num. xiv. 39 and refs.).

We have now gathered all the material of E from the present subsection, and in fact down to Num. xii. But how shall we reëstablish the connection? Fortunately we have at least the analogy of J's narrative as summarized above.

It is a feature of E's history which becomes increasingly prominent in Judges and later, to point out the repeated apostasies of Israel, and how, when the people repented and " mourned greatly," turning back to Yahweh from “the false gods" or other sin, he forgave them and granted deliverance (cf. Num. xiv. 39ff.; 1 Sam. vii.). After xxxii. 34 therefore, in place of the further intercession of Moses after the pattern of Gen. xix. 23ff., in J, we are quite prepared in E to hear of the people's repentance as the motive of Yahweh's relenting, instead of Moses' personal favor with Yahweh. Such in fact is precisely the character of the next verses we come to, bearing the stamp of E, viz. xxxiii. 4, 6. The people hearing the evil tidings of Moses' ill-success in interceding for them (cf. xxxii. 30-34, ending I will visit their sin upon them ") strip off ornaments," the spoil of Egypt. But there can scarcely be a doubt of what originally followed here. The people have sincerely "mourned" and shown contrition. From the religious belief of the writer as well as from the whole subsequent narrative it is positively certain that E did not stop here, but related next the relenting of Yahweh, and the perfecting of a new agreement between him and the people, in which the central feature would be the Sanctuary, the Ark, and certain prescriptions as to worship. From the elaborate description of the later and dependent P2 it is safe to assume that the use to which Yahweh directed the 66 ornaments stripped off "from Horeb onward" should be put, was the construction of this Tent of Meeting, which in the subsequent E narratives we find everywhere in use.

their

66

Yet the passage which now follows xxxiii. 4-6, though certainly derived from the same document, E, is not the sequel we expect. To connect it with the dissevered parts of J, vv. 1–3, 12ff., which it interrupts, is quite out of the question. It will not join with J, and moreover it bears every mark of E, as we have seen. But neither is it possible to think of any other position that xxxiii. 7–11 could have occupied, than the present. The verses are E's and are in place. The only admissible explanation of the lack of connection with vs. 6, is therefore that we have here a lacuua; and such is the unanimous opinion of critics.

Between xxxiii. 6 and 7 then, there is missing the entire account of

how a new modus vivendi was offered by Yahweh and entered into by the people, preparatory to their departure. This new covenant must have been ritual in its character, since it accompanied the institution of the Tent of Meeting and the subsequently employed elements of worship. The promises, which Yahweh would enter into on his part in it, would most probably concern the journey in prospect, and the occupation of the land of the Amorite, which of course Israel cannot hope to make conquest of without Yahweh; in short it must secure for Israel what the intercession of Moses in xxxiii. 12ff. secures in J. To carry out the apparently intended scheme of E in xixf., we should naturally expect a formal ratification of this covenant to follow, in which the people's part would probably be at least more conspicuous than Aaron's.

All this serves but to describe the section xx. 22-26; xxiii. 10–33; xxiv. 3-8, which we have already seen must belong to E; must be out of place where it stands, since it contemplates immediate departure (xxiii. 20), and constitutes a unit in itself, a Book of the Covenant as finally ratified.

Besides this there must have followed before xxxiii. 7 an account of the making of the Ark (in which the Book of the Covenant-the Debarim -was deposited?) and of the Tent of Meeting. With this would be comprised all that we could infer a priori with certainty to have been included originally between xxxiii. 6 and 7. But it can be shown further that after the account of the construction of the Tent came originally ch. xviii., the story of Jethro's visit, in which Jethro bids Moses, Aaron and the elders to a sacrificial feast "before God," i, e. at the sanctuary. We have already seen, in fact, that the true position of ch. xviii. was necessarily after Moses' instruction in "the statutes of God and his laws" on the mount (cf. xviii. 16 with xxiv. 12), and just before the departure from Horeb (cf. vv. 23, 27 and Dt. i. 6-18) in precise analogy with J (“Hobab,” in Num. x. 29ff.). Finally Ch. xviii. itself in turn (cf. especially vs. 23 "if God command thee so") looks forward to a further, and final Horeb institution, the administrative organization of the people. But this does not come before xxxiii. 7. On the contrary xxxiii. 7 -II is itself a preliminary to the expected narrative, which is now to be found, as we have seen, in Num. xi. 16f., 24-30, and immediately after, appropriately near the account of Jethro's visit bringing Moses' wife and children, the story of how Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because he had married a " Cushite" (Num. xii. 1–15).

We come now to that part of the subsection hitherto passed over, for which, however, a vacancy has been for some time waiting. The third element of Ex. xxxiii.f., the Covenant of Yahweh with Israel, presents

no trace whatever of E;* but is more distinctly parallelled in ch. xxiii. (E) than any other passage in the Hexateuch, the coincidence in the commandments being to a great degree verbal. It is not, however, a difficult matter to demonstrate from style and language that ch. xxxiv. belongs with the J element. 'Sinai" instead of "Horeb" as the place

66

(vv. 2, 4; cf. xix. 11, 18, 20); flocks and herds" forbidden to feed before that mount " (vs. 3; cf. xix. 12f. and J's attention to the flocks and herds of Israel passim); Moses unattended by Joshua, and the people excluded from participation (vs. 3; cf. xix. 12, 21, 24; xxiv. 2); Yahweh " descending upon mount Sinai " (vs. 5; cf. xix. 18, 20); Moses "called to the top (rosh) of the mount" (vs. 2; cf. xix. 20); are all conceptions and phrases as entirely foreign to E as they are familiar to J. Finally we have in the legislation itself (vs. 18) a direct and positive reference to Ex. xiii. 4-7 (J), "as I commanded thee, at the time appointed in the month Abib." There can accordingly be no doubt whatever that xxxiv. 1-28 is from the J document as a whole. Nevertheless the chapter is by no means free from difficulties.

Vv. 6-9 we have already connected with xxxiii. 17-23 as promise and fulfilment, and indeed this connection needs no demonstration. The verses are inseparable. So much so in fact that it is surprising not to see xxxiv. 6-9 follow directly upon xxxiii. 23. Again vv. 1-4 refer to Moses' breaking certain former tables of stone, and in fact give to the whole chapter the character of a renewal of the broken covenant. Now the J document, so far as we have been able to trace it, has not hitherto alluded to any tables of stone, nor to Moses' breaking them. This story was found only in E. Still our analysis might be corrected perhaps in this respect, if this were all; but in vv. 1off. it turns out that the chapter itself does not support the character thus put upon it by vv. I and 4 of a second law. The covenant which Yahweh makes there, so far from being the renewal of one previously unkept, is brought in as wholly new, 66 Behold I make a covenant." It contains not the slightest allusion to a predecessor, nor to any unfaithfulness on the people's part. Again vs. 28 relates that Moses spent 40 days and nights on the mount without sustenance; but pays no attention to the preceding datum of similar import in xxiv. 18 (E), nor to any previous sojourn in the mount whatever. It also appears in 27f. that the purpose of this prolonged stay is that Moses may write upon the tables (cf. vs. 27, "write thou") the Ten Words, and even these, it appears, are not, as promised in 1b, the Ten Words of ch. xx., but "the Words of the Covenant" just uttered. In still another respect vs. Ib is found in irreconcilable contradiction with this, for in b * See, however, the note on xxxiv. 4 a.

it is Yahweh who promises to "write upon the tables the words which were upon the first tables which thou brakest." The outcome of all this is very plain. Vv. 1b from “like unto the first," and 4a cannot possibly be genuine. The chapter itself rejects them. But if we strike them out the character of the chapter appears at the first glance. It is the missing parallel to E's story of the original giving of the tables of stone, and of Moses' stay upon the mount, presupposed in xxxii. 7-14 (J). The covenant is not a second, but the first; the tables of stone are not duplicates, but the original, and the final proof of it appears in the fact that they are called here tables of stones, whereas previously (in E) they have been known as the tables of stone." Moses is here receiving the Words of the Covenant" for which all the elaborate preparations of xix. 20ff., and the ceremonial covenant feast of xxiv. If., 9-11 have prepared the way, There is nothing to prevent xxxiv. Iff. from forming an immediate connection with that passage, the descent of the party being of course understood. Similarly it precedes immediately the story of the descent xxxii. 7–14, and affords the occasion for the rebellion of the people in Moses' absence, xxxii. 25-29, thus filling practically the whole gap in J's narrative.

66

What then of vv. 6–9, which we have seen to be connected with xxxiii. 17-23? Here too a closer inspection affords only new confirmation. These verses have only an apparent connection with vs. 5. A comparison of similar passages in J, Gen. iv. 26; xii. 8; xiii. 4, etc., proves that the true sense of vs. 5 is that given by the R.V. in the margin, “He (Moses) stood with him (Yahweh) there and called upon the name of Yahweh." Hence the following verses 6-9, relating to forgiveness and Yahweh's guidance have no real connection whatever with the rest of the chapter. The association is purely artificial. The touches in vv. Ib and 4a are accordingly redactional, intended to make room for the chapter in the character of a renewal of the covenant, after the example set by E in his Book of the Covenant, xx. 22–26; xxiii. 10-33; xxiv. 3-8. Moreover it is clear from the ritual character of this code that it is a finality, since it prescribes the worship as actually practised subsequently. Moses' later intercession accordingly is only for a renewal of Yahweh's favor, not a renewal of the covenant. This code like all the "prophetic" codes has suffered much from the interpolation o: Rd; but for this see notes in loc.

Our discussion of the Sinai-Horeb narratives will be incomplete if we fail to enquire the occasion of the great upheaval in ch. xxxiii. which led to the elimination of so large a part of the narrative of JE; a considerable portion at the end being forced to seek other points of attachment,

often incongruous; another part, describing the institution of the Tent of Meeting being wholly obliterated; and only the paragraphs relating the practise of Moses, and his intercession on behalf of the people, which could not take a different place, being allowed to remain. We are in some danger, however, of overestimating the extent of this displacement unless we remember that Num. xi. is really in almost immediate juxtaposition with Ex. xxxiii.; for in Num. x. 29ff. we are no further advanced than in Ex. xviii., and all the great mass of priestly legislation in the last chh. of Exodus, the whole of Leviticus and first ten chh. of Numbers, is crowded into the very last moments of the stay at HorebSinai, between the giving of the command to depart, Ex. xxxiii. 1, and the carrying of it into execution, Num. x. 29ff. In fact even Num. xii. seems still to belong to the Horeb-group, as one of the consequences of Jethro's visit, when Moses' wife was first brought into contact with Miriam and Aaron; so that Num. xi. 11f., 14f. cannot be said to have strayed far.

It is by no means necessary to settle to a nicety the part played by any or all of the redactors Rje, Rd, and Rp in this rearrangement of the material at the close of the Horeb narrative. All that concerns us is to suggest an adequate motive for the transfer, so that the suggestion of displacement be not open to the accusation of arbitrariness, and this it is not really difficult to do.

If we take up the displaced and missing elements in the order of the events of the narrative it is perfectly easy to see why Rje, after adopting E's version of the 40 days in the mount, xxiv. 12-14, 18 b.; xxxii. 1-6; xxxi. 18 b, should feel obliged to strike out from between xxiv. 11 and xxxii. 7, J's version of the same, viz. ch. xxxiv. The story of Moses' return to the camp, xxxii. 7-14 (J), and 16-24 (E), he found means to preserve for the most part in both versions, as well as that of Yahweh's anger at the people's sin, and their dismissal. The accounts of the peoples' repentance xxxiii. 4, 6 (E), and Moses' intercession, xxxiii. 12–23; xxxiv. 6-9 (J) he could retain from both, by putting the latter after the former, and striking out from it the duplicate account of the construction of the Tent, which from the traces in xxxiii. 4–11 he seems to have related in E's version. Next followed the renewal of the covenant xx. 2226; xxiii. 10–33; xxiv. 3–8 (E) which there was no reason to interfere with, and Rje doubtless left it in situ. The story of Jethro's visit, which followed, he had no motive for removing, since he found it not incompatible with Num. x. 29ff.; and Dt. i. 6-18 leads us to think it also remained for the present in this position, followed by the account of Moses' practise in regard to the Tent of Meeting, xxxiii. 7–11 (E).