Chh. III-IV. THE CALL OF MOSES AND AARON.

ANALYSIS.

This story is related in duplicate by JE and P2, the narrative of the latter in vi. 2-vii. 7 completely paralleling that of JE in chh. iii. and iv. Horeb the mount of God" where he was

God appears to Moses in keeping the flock of Jethro.

From a burning thorn thicket he reveals himself as the God of Moses' fathers, determined now to deliver Israel from their bondage. Moses is commissioned to demand their release from Pharaoh, and receives the revelation of the sacred Name, and a token of the success of his mission; iii. 1-15. He is sent to gather the elders of Israel and with them to ask of Pharaoh permission to go three days' journey into the wilderness and sacrifice. Yahweh will compel release and enable the people to spoil the Egyptians. Moses objects his lack of authority with the people, and receives power to exhibit three signs, his staff changing to a serpent, his hand to the hand of a leper, and water to blood; iv. 1-9. He objects his inability to speak well, and persists in refusal until Yahweh's anger is kindled. Yahweh gives the office of spokesman to his brother " Aaron the Levite," and to Moses a wonderworking rod; 10-17. Moses returns to Jethro, takes leave of his fatherin-law, and with wife and sons returns to Egypt. On the way at the lodging-place Yahweh seeks to kill him, but is propitiated by Zipporah's circumcising the child; 18-26. Arrived at Horeb, Moses meets Aaron and the two announce Yahweh's message to the people, which is gratefully received; 27-31.

No trace whatever of the style, language or thought of P occurs in chh. iii-v. On the contrary we have seen that Rp has reserved the parallel account of P2 for a distinct narrative in vi. 2-vii. 7, which repeats in briefer form all the essential points of chh. iiif. even to the reiteration of the revelation of the divine Name, of Moses' complaint of uncircumcision of lip (cf. iv. 10-16, and 24-26 with vi. 10–12, 28- vii. 2), and the appointment of Aaron as spokesman. Ch. vi. 2 is found thus to join almost directly upon ii. 25. But in spite of complete freedom from P, chh. iiiff. are anything but consistent and uniform. We need only take iv. 17ff. as an example. It becomes later manifest that vs. 17 refers to the wonders wrought by Moses before Pharaoh" (vs. 21), one series of which (E) are wrought invariably by the rod. But so far we know of no signs" but those of iv. 1-9, only one of which can be performed with the rod; and even these vs. 30 seems to attribute to Aaron. Vs. 19 again is alternative to vs. 18, and cannot be the sequel to it (cf. Gen. xxxi,

46

2 and 3). But independently of this, its motive for Moses' return, as we have seen, excludes the possibility that he had previously received a divine commission to Pharaoh such as iii. 7-18; moreover it joins, as the LXX. text shows, upon ii. 23a. The name Jethro in vs. 18, agreeing with chh. iii. and xviii., is inconsistent with ii. 15ff. with which again vs. 19 (“in Midian") agrees. Vs. 20a, in agreement with 24-26, represents Moses taking his wife and son (see note in loc.) to Egypt with him. But in xviii. Iff. Jethro comes to meet Moses after the exodus, at Horeb, and brings Moses' wife and her two sons with him. Of this the only explanation offered is the belated insertion in xviii. 3, " after he had sent her away" (see note in loc.). Vs. 20b would follow well upon vs. 17, but vs. 21 is not the sequel to vs. 20, nor is the anticipation of ch. xif. in vv. 21-23 appropriate to the present situation (see note in loc.). In ch. iii. the condition of the story is not materially better. The writer who relates the revelation of the Name Yahweh in vv. 10-15 cannot consistently employ it in vv. 2, 4, 7. In fact we discover immediately that there is a series of passages in which he does not. In these he consistently and invariably uses Elohim, as does the document E throughout Genesis; and where these clauses with Elohim are simply taken out of the context and placed side by side, we discover that they make, in the order found, a continuous, independent and consistent narrative, nearly complete. At the same time the portions left behind make another equally independent, complete and consistent narrative, each of the two having its own point of view, and its own characteristics of language and style. In short the phenomena themselves of the text, not the a priori assumptions of criticism, compel a documentary analysis.

66

we have

Vv. I and 6 obviously belong with vv. 1off. (E), not merely because of · Elohim," but because vs. 13 refers to vs. 6, and in vs. I Jethro (so in E passim) instead of Hobab (J) as Moses' father-in-law, and "Horeb" (see references) instead of "Sinai " (so J passim). Vs. 4 is clearly composed partly of each. The means of determining each element are readily afforded by the references. Throughout E in Genesis we have a large number of theophanies in which the formula of address here employed is used with such regularity as to be thoroughly characteristic. Outside this document it does not appear. The fullest example is Gen. xlvi. 2, 3a, which shows an exact parallel to vs. 4b when connected with 6a, And he said” etc. Again in E God never "appears" to men, as in J ; but either comes to them in a vision of the night" (Gen. xx. 3, etc.), or “calls to them out of heaven" (Gen. xxi. 17; xxii. 11, etc.); in Ex. xix. 3 he "calls to Moses" from the mount of God as here. Concrete and authropomorphic representations are studiously

66

avoided.

66

The clause "out of the midst of the bush" which is identical with vs. 2a, is therefore probably not from E. If anything, this document would have had out of the mountain" which Rje might have altered to agree with 2a. But with the clause, " And God called unto him, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said Here am I," we have all that we have any right to attribute to E in vv. 2-5, and this with vv. 1, 6, 9-14 makes the story of E practically complete. In like manner beginning with J, we might reverse the process. Vv. 7f. can be shown by reference to I : 11; Gen. xi. 5; xviii. 21; ch. xiii. 5, etc., to be characteristic of J, and are completely paralleled by vv. 9f. Vs. 2, inseparable from 3, 4a is referred to by Dt. xxxiii. 16 (J) and the theophany in fire is characteristic of J (Gen. xv. 17; Ex. xix. 18). Vs. 5 has but one counterpart in the OldTestament, Jos. v. 15 (J). The scene however cannot be the "mount of God" (see above, p. 10) but the road-side, after Moses has left "the lodging-place" (iv. 24-26). The "holy ground," vs. 5, is therefore perhaps to be identified with the sanctuary of this well-known place (cf. Gen. xlii. 27). Moses turns aside "from the way. The rod in his hand (iv. 2) is a wayfarer's staff.*

Vv. 9-15 are clearly uniform (see, however, note on vs. 15), vv. 9f. (=7f.) directing Moses to demand from Pharaoh the release of Israel; and with this agree vv. 19, 20 (?), 21f. But in vv. 16-18 there is not only a second message to Israel and to Pharaoh of similar tenor with the first, but the point of view is different. If Israel at their leave-taking are to "spoil the Egyptians" (vv. 21f.) then all thought of return from the wilderness is excluded from the outset. True, the jewels and raiment are not demanded as a right. They are really "borrowed"; for it is not by fear, but by "favor" (vs. 21; cf. xi. 3; xii. 36) that they are obtained. Hence also women ask them. The Egyptians expect them to be returned; but the borrowers have no such expectation, for they regard them as “spoil." The standard of morality here may not be high, but doubtless in the writer's eyes the action is simple justice. But in combination with vs. 18 this story takes the aspect more of deliberate fraud than of open war, a fraud which cannot even be excused as the necessary resort of weakness. The sacrifice in the wilderness is a dishonest pretense, and quite unnecessary if release was the real demand, and miraculous compulsion the means of securing it. If, however, we separate vv. 16–18 from their environment and connect them with vv. 7f. to which they linguistically correspond (cf. "appeared"; "bring up"-vv. 10-12 "bring forth ";" affliction "-vs. 9 oppression, "--" land flowing with milk

66

* In Art. I. the traces of J in iii. 2ff. are referred to Rje; a more thorough study of the passage, however, leads me to the above result.

and honey") there is no deception practiced.

Yahweh indeed promises to "bring them up,” but does not say how. The first step is that Moses and the elders shall go to Pharaoh and in good faith make the request of vs. 18. What the result will be remains to be seen. The proof that this is not the same as the demand of vv. 9-11 for release, is found in ch. v. vv. If. 4, in contrast with vv. 3 and 5ff. Here vs. 3 carries out verbatim the direction of iii. 18, and the antecedent of the pronominal subject is accordingly Moses and the elders. The result (vv. 5ff.) is increased "affliction " by the "taskmasters" (i. 11; iii. 7). Strictly parallel to this in vv. 1f. 4 is another demand, probably for full release (see note in loc.), by Moses and Aaron. It is abruptly terminated by the expulsion of the petitioners (vs. 4). The linguistic marks of iii. 16-18 are quite sufficient, as we saw, to characterize this element as J's: but independently it is possible to positively determine the E authorship of vv. 21f. Throughout J the people are always and consistently represented as dwelling by themselves in the land of Goshen (cf. e. g. viii. 22; ix. 26). In E on the contrary they live intermingled with the Egyptians (x. 23). It is the latter condition which is very strikingly set forth in iii. 21f. and the connected passages. Under the conditions presupposed in J the action they describe would in fact be impossible.

In ch. iv. I have modified the analysis presented in Art I. and must therefore present somewhat more fully than would otherwise be necessary the grounds of the present analysis. Vv. 1-16 present, so far as I can now see, no real break in the uniformity of thought save at vs. 14b (see below p. 2). Only after the anger of Yahweh was kindled against Moses" (vs. 14a) we do not expect the interview to close with the honor conferred in vs. 16. We expect rather something like the utterance repeatedly referred to in Deut., that “Yahweh sware in anger, Thou shalt indeed bring up this people unto the land which I give them, but thou thyself shalt not go in thither, only thou shalt see it with thine eyes, but thou shalt not go in thither " (cf. Dt. xxxiv. 4 and i. 37; iv. 21; xxxi. 3). The datum is wanting in what remains to us of JE, and there is no more probable place for its insertion than after iv. 16. But the uniformity of vv. 1-16 makes the inappropriateness of vs. 17 in its present connection only the more striking (see above p. 15).

Vv. 10-14a are so remarkably characteristic of J in language and style (see references and cf. the use of "Levite," vs. 14a, as=priest with ii. 1) as to leave no question of their relation to J; but I formerly assigned vv. I-9 to E on grounds which indeed still appear to me to have some weight, especially the reference in vii. 15 (Rje; see

note in loc.); the

phrase in vs. 6b "leprous as snow (cf. Nu. xii. 10. E); and the harsh

66

ness of vs. 1, after iii. 18a. The clause in vs. 6b, however, is far from decisive, as the expression is such as might be found in both documents, and the relation of vs. I to iii. 18a is perhaps also inconclusive. If not, the clause i 18aa may be assigned to E. At present therefore, it seems to me that the arguments in favor of iv. 1-9 as J's predominate. To this result I have been brought mainly by the following considerations. 1o The principal objection to J as author disappears with the recognition that the scene need not be Horeb, i. e. anterior to vv. 19-26; nor need the rod, vs. 2, be the shepherd's crook; but the scene is at some place between the lodging-place" and Goshen, whither Moses has turned aside (iii. 3) with his wayfarer's staff in hand, attracted by the unusual sight of the blazing thicket. 2o On the positive side it should be considered that protracted arguments between Yahweh and Moses, are common in J, but are incongruous with E's religious conceptions. A more cogent argument is furnished by vs. 17, certainly E. Here "the signs" unquestionably mean the plagues of Egypt, wrought invariably in E by the rod of God." But if vv. 1-9 had preceded vs. 17 as they now do, it would have been necessary for the author to distinguish in some way "the signs" of vs. 17 from the signs" of vv. 1-9. As the latter passage now reads it certainly conveys the impression (Wellhausen, Comp. p. 72) that no other "signs" are entrusted to Moses than those to be worked before the people (in J Yahweh inflicts the plagues without Moses' intervention). On the contrary vs. 17 seems to know none but those shown before Pharaoh. It is really necessary therefore to assign vs. 17 and vv. 1-9 to different authors. Finally the duplication of the miracle of the water changed to blood is thus avoided (see text of vii. 14-25). I am glad thus to be able at length to coincide here with the unanimoùs verdict of criticism.

66

The assignment of vs. 18 to E, 19, 20a to J requires no further justification than the references and the grounds already noted. Vs. 20b follows of course upon vs. 18; cf. vs. 17. On vv. 21-23 see note in loc. Vv. 24-26 are most incongruous in their present position, but are easily seen to be from J (cf. Gen. xlii. 27), and when the theophany of iii. 2ff. is restored to its true position after them, much of their strangeness disappears. To the same narrative must belong vv. 29-31 (cf. iii. 16–18 and refs.). Only in iv. 27 is there a phrase undeniably indicative of E, and this verse again seems to be connected with vs. 14b. Moreover the motive given by Moses for his return in vs. 18 is more natural if he is in reality sent to meet his brother " Aaron. Finally v. 1,.4, with its introduction of Aaron as Moses' coadjutor suggests that E also had some account of the association of Aaron with Moses in the call, and this is