« PreviousContinue »
able conclusion is that these E fragments were put in where they now stand at the time when Deuteronomy with its double framework, or envelope, of Dp and Dh was united to JE, the "prophetic " sacred history ; or, to put it still more simply and intelligibly, that when room was made in the closing chh. of JE for the incorporation of D + Dp + Dh, these fragments of the sacred history were regarded by the incorporator (Rd) as too valuable to be lost, and accordingly were attached as best they might be to Dh. It is perhaps significant that the most erratic fragment of all, is found embedded in that paragraph of Dh, which has been removed from the beginning of the historical discourse and interpolated after ch. ix., apparently on account of Ex. xxxiv., which we have already seen reason to regard as one of the reincorporations of Rd.
What theory can we frame' to account for these curious fragments? We must look at the fragments themselves to determine, after the satisfactory establishment of their origin, what their original connection and setting may have been. Afterwards the limits derivable from the admittedly dependent writings may shed some additional light.
The fragments in i. ib (2 ?) and x. 6f. give little information, It is clear that they are taken from an itinerary of the journey from Horeb to Kadesh, and, as we shall see, from the source E ; i. 2 informs us, perhaps on the same authority, that it was “eleven days' journey." The names in x. 6f, are parallel to Num. xxxiii. 31-33, where they appear before Kadesh. From the structure of the names it is probable that the region is that of mount Seir. From Num. xx. 1, which relates in an E frag: ment the death of Miriam on the people's arrival in Kadesh, it is natural to think that in this document that of Aaron was related somewhat later. We found no traces of the itinerary of E before Num. xx., where we should have expected its original position to have been. Had it been removed to the end of the Story of the Wilderness Wandering for such a purpose as Num. xxxiii. now subserves ? And is this late itinerary of Rp rewritten on the basis of the E original ? The itinerary Num. xxxiii. had a documentary source, elst vs. 2 would not read as it does. But there is now unfortunately little room for anything more than fancy in answer to the question, what this source may have been.
The fragments xxv. 17-19, xxvii, 1-8, uff, and xxxi. 141., 23 give more satisfactory indications. They probably stand, relatively to the story, in about the same positions they have always occupied. The charge to destroy Amalek and to enact a covenant in ratification of the law, erecting the stelae and the altar on Ebal, are the appropriate legacy of Moses in his last hours to the people, and are amply supported in E by the analogy of Ex. xvii. 14-16; 1 Sam. xv.; Ex. xxiv. 3–8 and Josh, xxiv. The fragment xxxi. 14f., 23 is presupposed by the whole subsequent narrative of E, and needs no vindication of its right to the place it now occupies. How much then, is presupposed between the end of the narrative of E, where we could last identify it with certainty and Dt. xxvii. 1-8? It is true that Dt. xxvii. 1-8 has been thoroughly recast by Rd, but if it had not been adapted to his purpose he would have either passed it over or written something to the purpose himself. It is safe to say that its essential character of directions for the ratification of a torah of Moses by sacrifice on mount Ebal has not been altered. Traces of the same conception appear also in vv. 11-26, though in a different sense (cf. xi. 29-32), and a much altered account of the fulfilment of the requirement here made appears in Jos. viii. 30–35. In all these passages, at least as they now read, the reference is to Deuteronomy. But in xxvii. 1-8 we have material, in fact the whole basis of the paragraph, which goes back of Deuteronomy to E. It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that in E also before the charge to Joshua there was a torah of Moses given to the people in the plains of Moab; there was a pre-Deuteronomic Deuteronomy.
This result does not follow merely from the presuppositions of Dt. xxvii, 1–8, but is an inevitable consequence of Ex. xxiv. 12-14, where the intention certainly is not merely to describe the source of Moses' judicial wisdom in his own day, but the source of the Mosaic torah of the writer's day, as of divine authority. If Moses did not, on the plains of Shittim, before
the installation of Joshua, communicate to " the elders of Israel” (Dt. xxvii. 1) the statutes and judgments given him of God "that he might teach them" (Ex. xxiv. 12), then this invaluable divine torah died with him. For it is not communicated at Horeb. The author of Dt. v. 31-vi. 3 would have the Deuteronomic Code pass for this law ; xxix. i positively affirms that there was such a Covenant in the Land of Moab, besides the Covenant made in Horeb.” If E did not relate it, then in his series of great characters Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Moses alone, Moses the lawgiver, prophet and teacher par excellence, is the only one who passes off the stage without a final address to the people adjuring them to be faithful to the divine institutions. Such a supposition is incredible. Deuteronomy itself presupposes its predecessor. Its two introductory discourses were suggested by the model of E's farewell discourses in the mouths of his heroes, most of all by that which he undoubtedly put in the mouth of Moses himself in these very circumstances. Most of all must Dh have followed the model of this primitive Deuteronomy of E, to the extent of giving to his work, especially in the first paragraphs, so pronounced an E coloration as to make it seem necessary to many critics to assume that in addition to JE combined he had also before him the document E in the separate form !
How much then can we recover of this primitive Deuteronomy of E? Traces of the narrative which preceded and followed the code itself are found in situ. Rd preserved them at the cost of a good deal of inconvenience. Did he then entirely reject the primitive Mosaic code ? On the contrary, when superseded by the revised and enlarged edition, the primitive Deuteronomy went to take its place in the midst of the Horeb legislation, as a part of “the first covenant which Yahweh made with the people at Horeb.” There we found it somewhat incongruously embedded in the Book of the Covenant, and obviously out of place with its separate title, “ Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them”; but in order to preserve its character of a covenant law it had to be inserted in the Book of the Covenant room or no room.
The Deuteronomic Code with its double envelope Dp and Dh could now take the place of The Book of Judgments with some adjustments (by Rd) to the remaining fragments of E, and a retouching of the whole work JED, especially in the legislative parts of Exodus. Then finally, when P2 was added, a date in Dt. i. 3ff., a harmonistic touch in iv. 41-43, possibly some modifications of xxvii. 14-26 and a resumption of Num. xxvii. 12ff. in xxxii. 48-52 were all that Rp needed to add before inserting P’s notice of Moses' death, xxxiv. 7-9 in the JE narrative of xxxiii. f.
In the above sketch of the history of the Deuteronomic Code and its two Introductions and Appendices the attempt has been made to convey a clear idea of the theory on which we proceed in extricating the fragments of the narrative from their present connection with the purely legislative work of Deuteronomy. It is not our present purpose to defend this theory of Deuteronomy, nor to demonstrate the existence of a Dp and a Dh. All this belongs to the history of the legal element of the Pentateuch. After the above description of the book and its history, as we understand it, we have only to turn to the passages above laid claim to as parts of the narrative JEP and demonstrate their independence of the context in which they now stand, in contrast with their real and organic connection with the Triple Tradition of the Exodus.
$ VII. (Narrative parts of Deuteronomy). THE COVENANT IN
THE PLAINS OF MOAB.
The mere concluding sentences of the story of Moses' life in P2 are found in Deuteronomy, detached from their necessary connection with Num. xxvii. 12-23, and appended to Deuteronomy by a few lines of date and connection, mainly a repetition of Num. xxvii. 12-23, supplied by R. The genuine elements derived from P2 simply relate the death of Moses and the 30 days' mourning, as in Aaron's case (Num. XX. 28f.) ; xxxiv. ia; 5b; also how Joshua his successor, according to the promise Num. xxvii, 15-23, is filled with the Spirit of Wisdom ; vv. 7-9.
E seems to have had an itinerary similar to Num. xxxiii. which may, however, have been displaced from between Num. xii. 15 and xx. 1. If it stood originally, or by transfer of Rje, where Num, xxxiii. now stands, i. e., at the conclusion of the Story of the Wilderness Wandering, the presence of fragments in the early part of Dh may be understood from the preceding comments on the book of Deuteronomy (see above, p. 250). Either here, or before Num. XX, 1, E synopsized the journey from Horeb to Kadesh in eleven stages, at one of which, Moserah, Aaron died and was buried, Eleazar his son succeeding to the priestly office ; Dt. i. ib, 2; x. 6f. [In the plains of Shittim Moses assembles the elders of Israel (xxvii. 1) and all the people for a parting address, in the nature of Jos, xxiv. He recapitulates the Story of the Wilderness Wandering, emphasizing particularly the facts relating to the appointment of judges and officers, and the disobedience of the people at Kadesh which had excluded them 40 years from the land of promise and commands vengeance on Amalek (Dt. i. 6-iii. 29 ; xxv. 1719). He is now about to deliver to them the torah and commandment he received at Horeb (Ex. xxiv. 12-14)]. At this point followed the little code of Mishpatim under the title, " These are the Judgments which thou shalt set before them," communicated by Moses to elders, judges, officers and people as the principles received at Horeb for the permanent administration of social order; Ex. xxi. 1-xxiii. 9. The address was then concluded by directions to the “elders ” to erect on mount Ebal, after conquest of the land, an altar according to the prescription of Ex, xx, 24, and (twelve ?) stelae, on which this primitive “law of the twelve tables" is to be inscribed. The ratification of this new covenant is to be celebrated by a sacrificial feast; and a covenant by the people on Ebal and Gerizim. Dt. xxvii. 1-8 * ; 11-13. Thereafter Yahweh summons Moses and Joshua to the Tent of Meeting and bestows upon the latter a charge as Moses' successor ; xxxi. 14f. 23. Moses dies in the land of Moab, but his sepulchre is unknown. No prophet like him has since appeared ; xxxiv. 5a, 6b, 10.
According to the J element of Deuteronomy, when Moses